Presentation of Case - Mr Drabble (Sections
66-133)
66. That is a body very much with a market
town agenda strongly in support of the inclusion of Towcester
within the UDC boundaries.
67. Going back to the speech, paragraph 34(iii)
refers to the East Midlands Development Agency's support and that
of English Partnerships and that of Northamptonshire Partnership
and the Northamptonshire Chamber of Commerce, which wishes to
"underline its support for the UDC".
68. The reasons for this support show that
those who serve the communities affected understand why the UDC
is appropriate, for example the Local Strategic Partnerships "are
all agreed that there is a fundamental requirement to address
the needs of new and existing populations in complementary ways
and that the three towns are allied in function and role to serve
town and catchment populations." The Towcester Partnerships
recognises that "it is [the growth of Towcester] which has
not been matched by a similar development of the social and physical
infrastructure, that is now severely affecting the sustainability
and future economic viability of the town as a rural services
centre". I could go on.
69. So we will be urging your Lordships to
place considerable weight on the wide range of support for the
Government proposals: from all political parties, from varied
public sector organisations and from the private and voluntary
sectors.
70. I have already mentioned that growth will
happen anyway in West Northamptonshire whether or not there is
a UDC. I am going to explain now why the UDC does not determine
the amount of growth and does not decide where that growth will
go.
71. The level of growth in West Northamptonshire:
the level of growth in West Northamptonshire will be determined
through the regional guidance to be contained in the Milton Keynes
and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy
72. I need to explain a little of the background.
The full details are set out in tab 23.
73. The basic framework for decisions as to
the amount of housing to be provided in a plan period was, until
the enactment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Act, as follows: firstly, the government would set out the housing
requirement for a region split down into requirements for each
county in the relevant regional planning guidance, the RPG.
74. The county councils were required to provide
for that number of houses through their structure plans in which
the total was divided up amongst all the local planning authorities
within the county.
75. Thirdly, the local planning authorities
would then have to make plans either through allocations of land
or through other means to meet the figures set for them in the
structure plan.
76. That process has now been simplified somewhat
in the 2004 Act. Now, first, the regional planning board will
produce a regional spatial strategy for the area which will identify
housing requirement for the period which it covers That will split
the total requirement down to give each local planning authority
its own requirement.
77. Secondly, the local planning authority
will then, through the Local Development Document, set out its
plans, policies and allocations for meeting the requirement.
78. Prior to the adoption of the regional spatial
strategy and the LDDs, the government is pursuing through the
relevant processes amendments to the regional planning guidance
for the south east and East Midlands and creation of guidance
on the relevant part of the east of England to give effect to
its policy of securing more housing in the growth areas.
79. A study in 2001/2 - the Milton Keynes and
South Midlands Study - concluded that there was considerable potential
for sustainable economic growth in the area Following this, the
three regional planning bodies covering the study area were asked
to develop proposed alterations to the relevant regional planning
guidance. The draft MKSM Strategy to perform this role was published
in July 2003. It was subject to public consultation and an examination
in public. The examination in public panel reported on the draft
strategy on 2 August 2004 and the ODPM will publish its response
to that report shortly. A further consultation period will then
follow before the strategy is adopted.
80. It is the strategy which will set the housing
figures for West Northamptonshire.
81. There have already been substantial opportunities
for individuals and organisations to put forward their views on
the appropriateness of the draft strategy. STOP, for example,
was invited to various sessions of the panel hearings as was CPRE.
There will be further opportunities to make representations on
the draft strategy once the ODPM publishes its response to the
panel's report Those who oppose growth have had and will continue
to have opportunities to set out their views
82. Once the level of development for West
Northamptonshire has been finalised, the three local authorities
will prepare their local development documents. As the note at
tab 23 explains, the LDD will explain how the authorities propose
to meet the housing requirement set out in the strategy and will
include proposed allocations. The authorities' proposals in this
regard will be subjected to detailed, statutory consultation requirements
and a local public inquiry. There will be through this process
numerous opportunities for objectors to set out their case as
to where development should or should not go.
83. The UDC will have no control over this
process. It will have no plan making powers. It will not set the
regional target. It will not set local targets. It will not decide
where to allocate land for housing. It will simply be the delivery
vehicle for the plans and proposals developed through other statutory
routes by other statutory bodies
84. Delivering more sustainable development,
point (v) of the preliminary points: I consider this issue further
when I address the benefits of and policy behind the Urban Development
Corporation below However, at this stage, it is worth highlighting
one point which appears to be lost on the Petitioners.
85. Lord Rooker will give evidence later that
his vision behind the UDC is that it will have the ability to
deliver more brownfield development than would local authorities.
It will be able to assist with site assembly, infrastructure and
similar matters to an extent that local authorities would not
be able to match either in terms of resources or experience. This
is crucial because if there are the ways and means of bringing
forward brownfield development speculative housing applications
on Greenfield sites will be able to be successfully resisted by
application of the sequential test - namely, looking for sites
in urban areas first If, on the contrary, developers are able
to show that, notwithstanding the large areas of brownfield land,
the constraints to it coming forward are such that in reality
it will not be delivered, the risks of further Greenfield development
being permitted increase. There is thus a very real, practical
reason why the UDC is good for those who want to limit Greenfield
development.
86. Logically, those opposed to growth should
oppose it through other channels - the strategy and the Local
Development Document process - but their opposition to a UDC fails
to recognise that the UDC is a means to minimise that about which
they are most concerned, namely, loss of green fields.
87. Relationship with local authorities: there
are two areas which need to be considered. Firstly, the UDC's
planning powers which are taken from the local authorities and,
secondly, its other powers and functions.
88. In respect of the first of these it is
important to distinguish between plan making powers and development
control powers. The UDC will have none of the former and will
only have some of the latter. Our planning system is now plan
led which means that development proposals are required to be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for these
purposes will under the 2004 Act be the regional spatial strategy
and the Local Development Document. Those documents set the planning
policies for an area. They allocate land for particular uses and
explain the approach which will be adopted to certain types of
development in certain locations. The development plan is worked
up through a statutory process which invites and allows major
public involvement. The plan making powers and functions will
remain with the local authorities. They will not transfer to the
UDC.
89. The UDC will however be given powers to
determine certain types of planning applications within the UDA
- namely, large strategic developments. This is a development
control function. It is sensible that the UDC should have these
powers because of the need to secure a coordinated approach across
the UDA, with the private sector, so that, for example, infrastructure
agreements - so-called 106 agreements - can be negotiated in the
most effective way. In exercising its development control function,
the UDC will undertake at least the same degree of community consultation
as local planning authorities are required to undertake and will
have to determine planning applications under the same statutory
framework as local planning authorities are required to do. The
location of strategic developments will be determined by the LDD
because, in the current plan led system, the location of major
strategic developments will be fixed in the plan. The Committee
should therefore approach criticism of the accountability of the
UDC on the following factual basis: firstly, the local authorities
will be determining where the growth should go and which land
should be subject to housing allocations through the LDD; secondly,
the UDC will determine strategic applications made to it in accordance
with the development plan; thirdly, the UDC will have a significant
number of elected councillors on it; fourthly, there will be wide
ranging public consultation requirements.
90. Further, it is important to note as a major
advantage the enhancement of local control and decision making
that a UDC brings with it. Absent a UDC, a local authority seeking
to undertake major capital projects - site assembly, infrastructure,
town centre development and so on - would generally have to approach
the local government office for funding. That government office
will pass the applications on to Whitehall, where they are judged
against nationally applicable criteria. Only those plans and projects
which meet the requirements obtain funding. The extent to which
local authorities can therefore deliver that which they consider
best for their area is not determined by them but in Whitehall.
This will not be the case under the UDC.
91. The UDC will be allocated funds, not earmarked
for specific projects but a general pot. It will decide how to
spend those funds. In so doing it will not have to assess the
projects it proposes against national criteria. It can decide
what it thinks is best for the area it serves and spend its funds
according to its priorities. This is the sort of freedom and flexibility
which is not and cannot be given to local authorities. The UDC,
with local representatives on it and working in partnership with
the local authorities and having on its board a number of councillors,
will have powers moved to it not from the local authorities but
from Whitehall.
92. Having dealt with those points at some
length, it is now appropriate to look at the policy behind and
the merits of this UDC.
93. The policy background and, in particular,
the sustainable communities plan: in February 2003 the First Secretary
of State presented the sustainable communities plan to the other
place. This is the government's plan for, one, securing regeneration
and an urban renaissance and, two, meeting pressing housing shortages
in the southern half of England. This is not the place to consider
the justification for the policy in any detail but understanding
the basic thrust is important to seeing the rationale for the
UDC in its context.
94. The problem which the sustainable communities
plan sets out to address has two essential elements. Firstly,
the perception that post-war development has created unsustainable
urban sprawl with inadequate emphasis on the needs of the community
with the result that town centres have gradually lost their role
at the heart of the communities they historically served. Secondly,
historic inadequate provision of housing with results with which
we are all too familiar: high house prices, young people being
priced out of their home communities, key workers being unable
to live in the areas where they work.
95. The sustainable communities plan has at
its heart two recurring themes which go hand in hand. Firstly,
urban renaissance and, secondly, increased housing provision.
96. Urban renaissance is required to reverse
the trends, as perceived by many, of recent decades of sprawling
estates on the edge of towns, designed for the car and with high
car dependency; pulling people out of rather than into their town
centres and with jobs and services being located out of centre.
The focus under the sustainable communities plan is to pull activity
back into the towns, to resurrect their historic roles as the
centre of community, and social and commercial activity.
97. In that context, increased housing provision
will be sought to be secured to the greatest possible extent on
brownfield sites within existing urban areas such as to contribute
to the urban renaissance rather than perpetuating historic trends.
Where Greenfield development is necessary to meet housing requirements,
it should be planned with a view to maximising the urban renaissance
and in a way which avoids unsustainable sprawl and inefficient
use of land.
98. The two themes therefore - urban renaissance
and increased housing provision - can thus be complimentary, pulling
in the same direction, rather than the latter undermining the
former as has been the case historically.
99. Sustainable communities are not just new
communities. Whilst in, for example, Thames Gateway, new communities
will be created, the sustainable communities plan is applicable
to existing communities as well. In the case of existing towns,
the ambition is to secure the renaissance and the much needed
new housing in a way where the two feed off each other with the
urban renaissance creating the sort of communities in which people
wish to live and with the new housing contributing to the delivery
of that renaissance.
100. The plan sets out some of the key requirements
for a sustainable community. They include, firstly, having a strong
local economy to provide local jobs and wealth; secondly, having
a safe and healthy environment; thirdly, being of a sufficient
size, scale and density to support basic amenities in the neighbourhood
and minimise the use of resources; fourthly, having good transport
infrastructure and, fifthly, having good quality public services.
101. These are all clearly desirable objectives
generally. Where expanded communities are required, these should
be sustainable, well designed, high quality and attractive places
in which people will positively choose to live and work. For reasons
to which I turn below, the best way of securing this for the three
towns with which we are here concerned is through a UDC.
102. I set out at paragraph 22 above the benefits
generally of a UDC which can be summarised as single minded focus,
access and influence on government, financial resources, expert
staff, long term view, comprehensive view across local authority
boundaries and ability to secure increased private sector commitment.
103. Those benefits are needed in West Northamptonshire
for three principal reasons. First, the scale of the task. Secondly,
the complexity of the task and, third, the cross boundary nature
of the problems to be addressed.
104. Evidence from Lord Rooker and senior officials
at the ODPM will explain in detail what benefits the UDC will
bring here. At this stage, I intend to give your Lordships a brief
overview only.
105. It is sensible to mention at the outset
the basic perspective we urge upon you as to why the UDA should
include not only Northampton but also Towcester and Daventry.
We believe that the case for a UDC in Northampton itself is straightforward
and overwhelming, and it is not clear to us that, for example,
the CPRE resist it. Given this fact, it is the government's firm
view that it would be highly unfortunate if all the regeneration
energy went into Northampton at the expense of Towcester and Daventry.
The three communities are closely linked. The objective must be
to ensure that both Towcester and Daventry thrive in their own
right and not merely as dormitory adjuncts. The centres and social
infrastructure of both Towcester and Daventry must be supported
if this is to be achieved. You will hear from both Sandra Barnes,
the leader of SNC, and Stephen Atkinson, the chief executive of
Daventry, as to their advocacy of this perspective. They want
their respective communities to be able to punch their weight.
106. The regeneration of Northampton and the
delivery of the growth that is coming to it is a massive task.
In 2002, it had 324 hectares of brownfield land that was either
unused or may be available for redevelopment. That is similar
to the amount at Thurrock where a UDC has been established and
more than in some of our major cities - places such as Newcastle,
Coventry, Nottingham and Leicester. The bringing forward of some
of the individual sites is by itself a huge task for a small local
authority; never mind bringing them forward in tandem with wide
ranging other projects . We give you references and examples.
107. Its capacity for non-greenfield housing
is up to 19,000 units, a huge number for a town of this size.
Bringing them forward to the maximum extent possible is a challenge.
The benefits of doing so are also huge.
108. There are a number of extremely large
and major town centre sites which require major regeneration projects
to contribute to the renaissance of Northampton. For example,
redevelopment of the much derided Greyfriars House on the edge
of the town centre to provide a new focus of retail and commercial
activity around a public transport hub is a huge task but it is
a task that self-evidently is required if Northampton is to succeed
in improving the role it plays for its catchment in the future.
109. Recent growth in housing provision has
not been matched by the necessary level of investment in social,
economic and community infrastructure. There is a need for substantial
investment in transport infrastructure. There are obvious pressure
points in the social infrastructure -- by way of an obvious example,
the hospital car park - and population growth has not always been
accompanied by the necessary and economic activity to ensure that
the new Northampton is a truly sustainable community.
110. The town centre is facing challenges from
other centres in the region especially Milton Keynes but also
lower order centres. The town scores badly on deprivation indices.
The challenge is to use the growth to assist in reversing the
relative poverty of much of Northampton.
111. The town's population is set to grow by
about 50 per cent from almost 200,000 to 300,000 over 20 years.
This requires 20 years of concerted effort to ensure that that
growth is properly and sustainably planned. That level of growth
requires massive investment in infrastructure - roads, schools,
hospitals, car parks and so on. Northampton will become the size
of Nottingham in terms of population. It will require up to 50
new primary schools, up to ten new secondary schools and double
the number of hospital beds. It is unreal to expect a relatively
small council to be able to manage this effectively so as to deliver
the sustainable communities the government is determined to build
here.
112. In respect of Towcester, regeneration
and creating a sustainable community is also a large task. The
social infrastructure is seriously is seriously lacking with historic
growth in housing not being matched by appropriate provision.
The town has a lot of catching up to do - the health facilities
need a new consolidated site and major investment, youth and day
care facilities need to be enhanced. The successful local comprehensive
probably needs a new site to allow its continued expansion. Secondly,
the town centre, "severed" by the A5, is not as successful
as it needs to be if it is to offer the range of retail and leisure
services that a town the size of Towcester needs if it is to be
a successful sustainable community. The large estates of the 1980s
and 1990s have not been provided with local social infrastructure
and, whilst relatively prosperous, these sprawling estates are
the opposite of what sustainability means. Future growth has to
be delivered with social infrastructure and not on the basis that
residents can get access to the services they need by getting
in their cars and driving elsewhere. Despite many years of trying
the town still needs a bypass. A bypass will open the way to securing
the town centre renaissance by removing the obviously visible
severance effect of the current A5 and making the town centre
a more attractive place for inward investment and retail and commercial
activity. Securing the provision of the bypass is a major task.
113. Our evidence will show that Daventry is
in decline and it is well down the road towards becoming a dormitory
town. These trends have to be reversed if Daventry is to be a
sustainable community of the future. The scale of the task is
daunting. Major town centre regeneration is urgently required
and new shopping and leisure facilities are needed.
114. There is a longstanding recognition by
the DBC that the historic centre is in need of major regeneration
if it is to act as a focus of the enlarged community in the future.
The Civic Trust Regeneration Unit was invited to work with Daventry
in 2002 to prepare a town centre vision. Mr Stephen Atkinson on
behalf of Daventry Borough Council will explain to your Lordships
why the council considers bringing forward this vision is essential
to reversing the relative decline of Daventry and why a UDC is
the appropriate vehicle to do so. Absent the renaissance of Daventry
town centre as the centre of local social, retail, cultural and
economic activity, there is a very real risk that the substantial
growth which is coming to Daventry town centre anyway will exacerbate
rather than contribute to reversing the town's decline into dormitory
status.
115. From the above it will be clear that the
regeneration tasks facing each of the three towns are very different.
Northampton is a classic case of a town which needs major physical
regeneration with large areas of underused or unused land. Towcester
does not have large areas of derelict or underused land in the
same way as Northampton but it is clearly in need of a renaissance
- severance by the A5, sprawling estates, creeping dormitory status
and inadequate social infrastructure all have to be reversed.
Daventry has the clear scope to be a successful market town, with
the potential to be a thriving sustainable community of the future.
That potential will only be realised by substantial town centre
investment over a sustained period to resurrect the town centre
as the heart of the community's social, economic and cultural
activity. Whilst the tasks facing each of the towns are very different,
each of their councils and the local strategic partnerships recognise
that the UDC is the best way to ensure the regeneration they need.
116. I do not intend to say much about the
complexity of this task in opening. Witnesses from the councils
and the ODPM will explain how complex succeeding in these three
towns given the task will be. It would be unrealistic to expect
SNC or DBC to be able to deliver that which their towns require
on the scale identified above. This is far from a criticism of
these councils. The reality is that a UDC will be much better
placed to ensure success than two relatively small local authorities.
The councils themselves recognise this. They have the ways and
means of delivering individual projects on a relatively small
scale and have the local knowledge to know what is best for their
towns but they recognise that the UDC will be much better able
to deliver that which they know they need than they are themselves.
In respect of Northampton, the scale of the task in Northampton
alone would be easily enough to justify the creation of a UDC.
117. Cross boundary issues are particularly
important here. We have seen the local authority boundaries on
the plan at divider 2. Any further expansion of Northampton south
and west would cross into the areas of Daventry and South Northampton.
Such growth was perceived by them as a threat to their "green
wedge" between their main towns and Northampton and to their
ability to avoid becoming yet more dormitory in their nature.
For these reasons those councils sought through the strategy to
ensure that development which was to occur in their areas be not
development on the edge of Northampton to increase the size of
that town but on the edge of Towcester and Daventry on the basis
that properly planned and directed growth could assist the sustainable
development of those towns, whereas further growth of Northampton
south and westwards would not do so. SNC and DBC know that the
future of these towns is inextricably linked to the future of
Northampton and that the future of the three towns' housing, infrastructure
and employment has to be considered in tandem. The best body to
do this is the UDC.
118. With regard to points raised in the petitions,
we have set out above the basic rationale for the UDC and why
it is justified ion the context of West Northamptonshire. We will
test the Petitioners' cases in cross-examination and will make
final submissions on them. However, at this stage, on the limited
knowledge that we have of what the key points are the Petitioners
are likely to raise, we have the following short points.
119. Some petitioners argue that the UDC should
not be established because the level of development proposed for
West Northamptonshire in the MKSM strategy is excessive. As I
have shown above, and as will be developed in evidence, it is
in the MKSM strategy where the level of development for West Northants
will be settled. The process is independent of the Order. Not
establishing the UDC will not educe the level of development proposed.
The UDC is being established in the context of that growth to
help reduce the potential negative effects of that growth by recycling
brownfield land, providing infrastructure, rejuvenating the local
economy and revitalising town centres, and to increase its positive
impacts by using the opportunity it presents to help tackle the
existing regeneration problems. Without the establishment of the
UDC there will be more pressure on Greenfield sites, not less.
120. Some petitioners assert that setting up
a UDC is premature as the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy is not yet
finalised. This is not justified. The outcome of the Sub-Regional
Strategy is independent of the existence of the UDC. The UDC's
merits are largely independent of the precise terms of the MKSM
Strategy.
121. Some petitioners allege that the level
of growth proposed in the strategy will have to be accommodated
on Greenfield land and that the UDC is being set up to deliver
this. This is not correct for three reasons. First, as already
shown, the allocation of land for development, whether that be
greenfield or brownfield, will remain with the local planning
authorities. The existence of the UDC, with its focused powers
to recycle brownfield land, will usually encourage local authorities
to allocate brownfield sites for development, which they might
otherwise consider too difficult to bring back into use. Secondly,
it is existing government policy that suitable brownfield land
is used for development before greenfield land. The local authorities
will have to abide by this when preparing their local development
frameworks and the UDC will have to abide by this when determining
planning applications. Thirdly, a UDC would hardly be required
to encourage development on greenfield land. The market will develop
greenfield land in preference to brownfield, and needs no assistance
from a UDC to do so. The single-minded powers of a UDC to assemble
complex sites are ideally suited to maximising the use of brownfield
land and the government is seeking to establish to establish one
in West Northants to ensure that the growth proposed in the strategy
is, as far as possible contained within brownfield land.
122. Some petitioners allege that Daventry
and Towcester and parts of Northampton should not be included
in the UDC as they are not in need of regeneration. This is not
based on the facts, nor is it a view supported by the democratically
elected representatives of these settlements. Daventry and Towcester
have been growing in population terms, but their centres are in
decline. Retail outlets and employment opportunities are not present
in sufficient numbers to avoid a slow decline into dormitory town
status. The responsible councils have already prepare regeneration
initiatives to address these problems but have recognised that
a UDC will be required to help with delivery.
123. Some petitioners allege that the level
of growth proposed in the MKSM strategy will lead to increased
congestion, primarily on the A45/A5 crossroads in Weedon. The
government does not dispute that increased development may lead
to increased traffic on these routes. However, the level of development
in the tree settlements will be determined by the MKSM spatial
strategy and not by the creation of the UDC. The establishment
of the UDC will not increase the level of development proposed
in the MKSM strategy, and equally, not setting up the UDC will
not decrease it. Further, the government believes that the UDC
would reduce the level of traffic on these roads compared to the
same level of development without the UDC. This is because the
UDC's object is to make the level of development proposed in the
strategy sustainable. This will involve promoting employment growth,
better schools, health care and other amenities within the three
settlements, thereby reducing the need to travel between them.
124. Some petitioners allege that the level
of development proposed in the strategy will increase the risk
of flooding, particularly with regard to Weedon. This does not
logically lead to one objecting to the UDC. The level and location
of development will not be for the UDC. If the level of development
did increase the risk of flooding this would be the case irrespective
of whether a UDC is established. However, we do not accept that
the risk of flooding will in fact increase.
125. Some petitioners allege that a UDC is
inappropriate for towns embedded in rural areas. There is no restriction
in the legislation upon areas that can be designated as urban
development areas, provided that there is a need for regeneration,
and this UDC area is restricted to the three largest towns in
West Northamptonshire. Precedent for the inclusion of such towns
in a UDC area was set by the establishment of the Thurrock UDC
in October 2003.
126. Some petitioners allege that the planned
growth of Daventry will encroach on surrounding villages. This
is not understood. The boundary of the UDC provides a significant
gap between Daventry and the surrounding villages. Without a UDC
to manage the growth that is already occurring and that is planned
independently of the UDC, encroachment on surrounding villages
we say would be more likely.
127. Three individual petitioners allege that
the establishment of the UDC will result in excessive development
near their homes that will force them to vacate their present
dwellings. The claim is unfounded. In any event, even if justified
such a result would not be the result of the creation of the UDC.
It may be that their houses are affected as a result of the strategy
and locational decisions that are still to be made in the local
development document by the borough council, but those processes,
as repeatedly stated already, are independent of the UDC.
128. Some petitioners allege that the UDC Board
will be sufficiently democratic or accountable. This has been
answered in the body of this opening. Some petitioners allege
that decision-making will be impaired by lack of local knowledge
and local accountability. The four local authority members referred
to earlier will fulfil these functions and the information pack
for board members to be appointed by open competition states that
candidates are sought with an understanding of regeneration and
local community issues in West Northamptonshire. The Chair designate,
Keith Barwell, who was appointed through these procedures, is
indeed a well-known local person. In addition, the UDC is required
to draw up a code of practice as to consultation with the four
local authorities by virtue of section 140(1) of the Act. The
government has also made a commitment that UDCs will adopt Statements
of Community Involvement for the use of their development control
powers in the same way that local planning authorities will do
under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
129. Some petitioners allege that the formation
of the UDC would marginalise the rural villages and their parish
councils. This is incorrect. No organisation with responsibilities
outside the UDC area will have any loss of powers. It is vital
for this committee to consider these points raised by the Petitioners
in their context. They are not made by the local authorities concerned.
They fly in the face of the carefully considered views of those
democratically elected bodies and they fail to reflect what the
UDC is actually about. We hope we will demonstrate that the concerns
of the petitioners are not justified and that the UDC will be
a means of reducing the impact of growth rather than increasing
it.
130. For all the reasons I have given the government
firmly believes that the creation of this Urban Development Corporation
and Urban Development Area, with the presently proposed boundaries,
represents the appropriate way forward. That view is widely shared,
not least by those on the ground who will have to work on a day-to-day
basis with the UDC if it is created. We ask you not to frustrate
their ambitions.
131. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for
that, Mr Drabble. Perhaps, if it is convenient to you, this might
be an appropriate moment to adjourn for five minutes.
After a short break
132. CHAIRMAN: Mr Drabble, there is
one small administrative point I should mention before inviting
you to resume, and that is that during the lunch break this room
will be secured. It will be opened again at a quarter to two in
case you wish to have access to your papers. It will also be kept
locked overnight throughout the committee's proceedings and it
will not be used by anybody else, so do feel freer to leave your
voluminous papers here if that is convenient.
133. MR DRABBLE: Thank you, my Lord.
I am very grateful. Can I apologise for one mistake in the opening
which was that we referred constantly to Daventry Borough Council.
It is a district council. I am sure those behind me are making
that fairly plain. I will now call Lord Rooker.
| 
