LORD ROOKER, sworn
Examined by MR DRABBLE
134. MR DRABBLE: Lord Rooker, can you
from your perspective as Minister of State indicate where the
real beginning to this present proposal for an Urban Development
Corporation came from?
(Lord Rooker) My
day job is Minister for Regeneration of the Regions in the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister. My night job is to answer to the
department for everything else in your Lordships' House, whether
it is the Fire Service, local government or whatever. The starting
point of this process was this. There have obviously been previous
discussions but on 4 July last year the four local authorities,
that is, the West Northamptonshire local authorities that you
have referred to wrote to me and their letters are set out at
tab 14. We had discussions. The four local authorities discussed
amongst themselves which kind of local delivery vehicle was best
for what was in effect channelling government support and funds
into their area to support the regeneration. There was a range
of options then on the table and we have operated consensus throughout
this process and they formally wrote and requested that we establish
an Urban Development Corporation.
135. MR DRABBLE: If we just look at
tab 14, without reading all the documents, we can see the letter
that was written. On 4 July is a letter from the Chief Executive
of Northampton Borough Council, is that right, at page 241?
(Lord Rooker) That
is correct.
136. MR DRABBLE: It refers back to one
of the earlier meetings on 27 June in the first paragraph, "Can
I thank you again for that meeting, which we all found very helpful
and constructive". Over the page at 242 there is a paper
in the name of the four authorities and Daventry is correctly
shown as a district council, the paper indicating a desire to
have an Urban Development Corporation for the reasons which they
set out at greater length - and I do not think we need to spend
a lot of time on this - between pages 243 and 245. We can formally
see in the paper at the top of page 245 that the councils' proposal
is "that for West Northamptonshire the Secretary of State
should (subject to Parliamentary approval) be asked to create
an urban development corporation under section 135 …"
and then it sets out the composition.
(Lord Rooker) That
is correct. We agreed with their concerns and I made the point
earlier that we had lots of committees. Indeed, I have been several
times to meetings. In fact, after the 2003 local elections I visited
the area once again because there was substantial political change
in Northamptonshire amongst the districts and it was important
that we establish good relations, so I had had several meetings
with all parties over this period of time. The letter came out
of a consensus discussion. There was no forcing either way because
the options were there. We agree with their conclusion because
of the scale of the issue we are dealing with that you have set
out in your earlier opening statement, and it was crucial that
it was a partnership arrangement as well that would be the best
solution for that particular area.
137. MR DRABBLE: Do you want now to
say something about the bigger picture, the general context in
which this proposal for an Urban Development Corporation needs
to be put?
(Lord Rooker) In
addition to what you have outlined it is true that the government
has designated four growth areas for the wider south east. I have
to say "wider south east", my Lord Chairman, because
our definition of the south east these days includes Wisbech and
Corby, because that is clearly set out in the growth areas of
both Milton Keynes and South Midlands and the adjoining growth
area, which is the Peterborough/Cambridge/Stansted/London growth
area.
138. MR DRABBLE: If you look at divider
10 there is a plan, is there not?
(Lord Rooker) There
is indeed. The areas coloured blue - we are not going to flood
middle England, and neither are we going to concrete over it.
Because it was decided that cross-hatching would be more complicated
we set out the four growth areas. The Thames Gateway, which we
are not here concerned with, was of course designated by the current
Lord Heseltine some years ago, so all credit for that goes to
him. Ashford is just the pure town of Ashford as a single growth
area. The other two growth areas, as one can see, are substantial.
We are dealing at the moment with a part of the Milton Keynes/South
Midlands area in which there is a variety of proposed delivery
vehicles for growth, not in Keynes itself. The town, by the way,
will double in size. There is a Statutory Development Agency that
has been set up under existing powers earlier this year. Other
delivery vehicles are local authority delivery vehicles which
are suitable for purpose and we still have to make some decisions
about some of the towns in that area as to what the delivery vehicle
will be. This is an ongoing discussion with the local authorities
and their partners. With regard to the background, the fact of
the matter is that in the last 30 years we have seen high economic
growth and rising incomes. We have an issue in this country of
a lot of smaller households. People are living longer, they are
leaving home earlier, there are more break-ups. Therefore, we
have a massive formation of single person households, much greater
than in the rising population as a whole. We know now that the
projections for household growth are round about 189,000-190,000
additional each year. We are building fewer homes now than we
were 30 years ago. In fact, we have got the worst house building
record in the country at the moment since 1924. New home building
has fallen from a peak of about 350,000 a year in the 1960s to
something below 130,000 in 2001, and when one takes account of
the demolitions the net figure is about 120,000.
139. MR DRABBLE: These are all figures
for England?
(Lord Rooker) These
are figures for England. We cannot meet the new need, let alone
replace our existing stock. We have an appalling record for replacing
our stock in this country. Consequently, in areas where there
is high growth, houses are in short supply notwithstanding, I
realise, that there are empty properties, but there always have
to be empty properties to make the market work anyway. Needlessly
empty properties are being dealt with by other legislation. Certainly
it causes a shortage of supply and puts the price up. Therefore
we have consistently rocketing house prices in areas where people
have been driven away from their localities and where homes for
key workers are in desperately short supply. Hence the attempt
to manage the growth by going for growth in those four growth
areas. Our plan is to have half the growth of the south east in
those four growth areas so that it can be managed, contained and
be sustainable. The implication is that there is not any growth
anywhere else but it will not be at such a high, concentrated
level . This way we can manage the growth. That is the only way
we will get sustainability.
140. MR DRABBLE: What steps have the
government taken to deal with the issue?
(Lord Rooker) An
initial step was that when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
was formed on 29 May 2002 we were having discussions about what
had happened because it was a new department borne out of other
changes. In July 2002, the 18th to be precise, the
Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the House of Commons
on the housing shortage and promised to return with an action
plan. He did that on 5 February 2003 when we published Sustainable
Communities: Building for the Future. That plan, even though
there have been additions and updates since, is the road map,
not of our department but of the government; it is a government-wide
operation. All the decisions that we are taking north, south,
east and west, urban and rural, flow from what was in that publication.
It is not a housing plan, as I have repeatedly said in constant
visits to the growth areas. We have not produced a housing plan.
We do not have a target for national house building. We have a
plan for making sure communities are sustainable and that means
proving we have learned from the lessons of the past, some of
which of course have been disastrous.
141. MR DRABBLE: If you look at the
bundle again, at tab 9 is the plan.
(Lord Rooker) It
is indeed.
142. MR DRABBLE: We have not got time
for a detailed examination of it but we can see if we look at
page 108 (page 4 of my internet version), there is a heading "Why
'sustainable communities'?". The main paragraph there says,
"A wider vision of strong and sustainable communities is
needed to underpin this plan, flowing from the Government's strong
commitment to sustainable development. The way our communities
develop, economically, socially and environmentally, must respect
the needs of future generations as well as succeeding now. This
is the key to lasting, rather than temporary, solutions; to creating
communities that can stand on their own feet and adapt to the
changing demands of modern life". Over the page it says,
"What are the problems we must tackle?", and if one
runs an eye down it is the same issue of a desperate need for
housing figures but also a need to produce housing in as sustainable
a way as possible.
(Lord Rooker) That is correct.
As I say, we learn the lessons from the past. We have been demolishing,
and are demolishing, dwellings that were built sometimes just
25 years ago: they were in the wrong place; were not fit for purpose;
poor design; the infrastructure was appalling; and in some towns,
particularly urban areas, a renaissance is going on but it is
being done on the basis that we have admitted we have made mistakes
in the past. There has not been enough consultation either, not
enough overall thought to where the schools are, the hospitals,
the doctor's surgery, the police station and, dare I say, the
odd prison, because communities need everything. It is not just
the infrastructure for road and rail, it has to be the social
infrastructure that is absolutely crucial. That is what we are
determined to do with this plan.
143. MR DRABBLE: What do you see as
the key ingredients of a sustainable community looked at in that
way?
(Lord Rooker) Essentially,
the shorthand version of a sustainable community is one that will
carry on working when we walk away from it. In other words, where
we are putting in the support, whatever the delivery vehicle is,
Urban Development Corporation or the master planning, it has to
survive but it must not degenerate into a dormitory town. Some
places, if they do not grow they will die. There is no question
of staying where you are and having a happy life because without
a variety of life going on it reduces community. It is true that
where community takes place it makes it easy and convenient for
people, if possible by public transport, even putting back some
of the Beeching railways is part of the distant operation and
part of our plan. It has to be a local economy that provides jobs
as well as leisure and education and the health services. It is
so that communities can be as sustainable as possible so that
people want to live there and the children of people who live
there want to live there as well and are not driven away because
of a shortage of jobs and suitable housing.
144. MR DRABBLE: At national level,
in administrative terms, what steps have the Government taken
to co-ordinate the growth levels?
(Lord Rooker) As
I have said, although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
published the Sustainable Communities Plan, it is a Government-wide
operation. We are the department that is in the lead. The overall
management of this is done by a Cabinet Committee known as Misc
22, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. This is the means
of getting buy-in from all Government departments. There are some
ten Government departments involved to a lesser or greater degree.
It is important that health, transport, education bend their programmes
and planning to know that growth is going to occur.
145. Growth is occurring now, as you have rightly
said this morning, and there are some figures that will be given
later. There is some phenomenal growth in these areas but if it
continues in an unmanaged way there will be severe problems, not
the least, of course, with local government finance because the
figures that we base the local government finance on area always
two to three years out of date, therefore they are always unrealistic
for the services that local authorities have to provide. That
is something that we plan to take account of and have promised
that we will make a statement later this year. It does need co-ordinated
action across Government and that is Government at the centre
here at Whitehall, plus the relevant agencies at the regional
level, whether they be the Environment Agency or the Highways
Agency. It is that that gives the confidence to the private sector
because most of the investment will be from the private sector
and not Central Government, although our investment is hundreds
of millions.
146. MR DRABBLE: Indeed. If we can talk
about these petitions. How do you see that perspective of housing
growth in relation to the Government's concern about protecting
the countryside?
(Lord Rooker) In
a way, when I was asked the other day what our priorities were
for the growth areas, my number one priority is needing to protect
the countryside. We have a target, and we are the first Government
ever to have a target, for new dwellings to be on a minimum of
60 per cent brownfield, which is second hand land or second hand
buildings. We are achieving something like 65/67 per cent at the
moment. In fact, we are under pressure to increase the target
because we met it eight years early. However, we are doing it
at a very low level of housing production and we know that it
will be more difficult in future. We can do that both in an urban
area and in a town area. There is an enormous amount of brownfield
land in the area.
147. English Partnerships, the national regeneration
agency, is charged with drawing together a strategy plan for the
brownfield sites, keeping track of them. Brownfield land is being
created almost every day as either factories or developments cease
and their change of use becomes a potential. That is important.
We have got many people who will live on former brownfield sites.
They are more expensive to build on which is why, left to the
market, the developers just love greenfields, because they are
easier and cheaper, land preparation is next to nothing compared
to brownfields, but we need to make sure that market does not
prevail in these circumstances.
148. MR DRABBLE: Obviously it will be
necessary to use greenfield land to an extent.
(Lord Rooker) Yes.
Let me make it absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding:
our target is 60 per cent of all new dwellings on brownfield land.
That implies, and it has got to be clear, it is nothing new, that
up to 40 per cent will be on greenfield. That is the implication.
The higher we can build on brownfield, fine. As I said, we are
in the high 60s at the present time and that is good, that is
fine, we will seek to keep it at that level as we increase that
production, but some of it will be on greenfield and we will have
to be very careful where that occurs, of course.
149. MR DRABBLE: What consideration
would the Government like to see taken of greenfield development
when it does occur?
(Lord Rooker) First
of all, that it is last resort or that it is crucial to the development
of some brownfield. There are some areas, and in Northampton there
is one site in particular, where to open up and make full use
of a massive brownfield site there does need to be, I understand,
an incursion into some of the greenfield. While I am saying "greenfield",
we have to be very careful what we mean by greenfield. The words
"green belt" are used interchangeably with greenfield.
The green belt is quite specific in terms of land area. It is
statutory, it is not areas of outstanding beauty, again that is
another set of greenfield, and it is not national parks either.
All three are quite separate. England is about 90 per cent greenfield
made up of either scrubland, farmland or those three areas I have
just spoken about. Even when all of the growth is completed, if
we achieve all our targets in 20 years, that 90 per cent figure
will come to about 88.5 per cent, so it is a very, very small
take if there are incursions. If there are incursions into the
statutory green belt we have committed ourselves to not only replacing
it but extending it. There are 19,000 more hectares of statutory
green belt now than there were seven years ago, so our record
in creating protected green belt is a good one.
150. MR DRABBLE: When greenfield sites
are developed, do you have a particular approach to the quality
of the design? What can sensibly be brought forward on our greenfield
sites?
(Lord Rooker) First
of all, we want to raise the density. We have got an appalling
record. I think in the wider South East of England in the last
ten years, 40 per cent of new dwellings have been four bedroom
detached houses built at about 21 dwellings per hectare, which
is an incredible waste of land. First of all, it is not the kind
of dwellings that are needed anyway and, secondly, it has not
been a good use of land. We issued a Density Directive to cover
a good part of the South East of England just over 12 months ago
to go for a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare. By the way, on
some of our urban areas and, indeed, some of the new areas, there
are developments of 50, 60 or 70 dwellings per hectare that are
winning prizes in terms of environmental quality and architectural
quality.
151. We have vastly increased the resources
for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,
which is the quango that used to the Fine Arts Commission in the
old days. They are required to run a rule over these developments
to make sure they are quality developments. We do not want any
more reports from CABE, as was published ten or 14 days ago, dealing
with developments that had occurred well before the Communities
Plan was published. All of this massive growth that is going on
now, the vast majority was planned for many years ago. We are
trying to change the rules as, indeed, as we are changing the
law as we go along to make sure that we get the best benefits
if we do have to use greenfield land.
152. MR DRABBLE: Can we go on to the
specific picture in West Northamptonshire. Are there any specific
issues on West Northamptonshire? What is the picture like?
(Lord Rooker) As
has been said to the Committee in the opening, the growth does
not flow from this Order; the growth is taking place anyway. I
understand that the Committee will visit parts of the area and
if you go to anywhere in Northamptonshire, particularly the areas
of growth, you will see massive growth going on which has obviously
been planned and going on for some considerable time.
153. The population of Northampton in the last
decade, between 1991-2001, increased by 5.7 per cent and that
is twice the national rate, which is 2.5 per cent. In South Northants,
which of course includes Towcester, the rate was 12.1 per cent.
We are talking about nearly five times the rate of national growth.
Indeed, in that area that has made it one of the fastest growing
local authorities in England and Wales. In Daventry, the rate
of population increase over the same time was 14.4 per cent, nearly
six times the national rate, making Daventry the seventh fastest
growing local authority anywhere in England and Wales.
154. West Northamptonshire is still growing.
The County Structure Plan suggests there will be an extra 32,000
dwellings in West Northamptonshire between 1996 and 2016. These
figures are currently being reviewed and revised in the Milton
Keynes/South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, which has been explained
and is quite a separate statutory operation from this hearing.
The Deputy Prime Minister will publish shortly - although everyone
says ministers always say shortly - and I can tell you the plan,
save a national catastrophe, is tomorrow the revised amendments
to that structure will be set out and there will be an eight week
consultation, so it will be early next year before the final plan.
155. MR DRABBLE: We can tell the Committee
tomorrow what the figures are.
(Lord Rooker) We
can do, yes. The other point that has been made, and it is not
an unimportant point, is that what local people say is it is all
very well for us sitting in Whitehall and at the moment we are
making some of the decisions. I, along with officials and colleagues,
have made decisions on a lot of the projects, some of which are
in the bundle, that have occurred as the first tranche of growth
money that we achieved in the Spending Review of 2002. We can
have consultation but it is not right that some of these decisions
are made by ministers in Whitehall when local people know best.
We have always said to the local authorities that if they buy
the big picture, ie the Communities Plan, our desire is that as
many as we can, all if possible, of the decisions made about what
happens where will be made locally via local authorities, via
delivery vehicles. That is the issue.
156. The joy of part of my role as an ODPM
Minister, separate from my colleagues, is I spend most of my time
negotiating and discussing with people who are not from my political
party because of the nature of the job I have. You only have to
see the areas of the country I am working with. The question is
to persuade people, although they do not need a lot of persuasion,
that growth is occurring and by and large if they buy the big
picture there is some government money to get sustainability.
People are quite rightly of the opinion that infrastructure has
not kept up with the growth. My mantra has been no infrastructure,
no growth. That is the point I say to the Treasury, ministerial
colleagues and anyone else who wants to listen. I am absolutely
adamant about this because people will not move to areas if they
do not see the school open, do not know where the doctor's surgery
is or everything is on a wing and a prayer. There is no reason
why they should be expected to do so and there is no earthly reason
why the private sector should invest and build in areas if there
is not a master plan for the area that is being driven and properly
managed.
157. MR DRABBLE: In terms of delivery
vehicles, what do you think the local perception is of what is
required in West Northants? What has it got to do?
(Lord Rooker) There
is no question about it, I had the joy earlier this year of being
on the interview panel of those who applied for the chair of the
delivery vehicle, so they fully understand what it is to do and
what it is not do. It is not to carry on the role of local authorities
of running the town, its express purpose is to manage the delivery
and also, very important, of course, to market the area for jobs.
The employment aspect of it is crucial because it is a Communities
Plan, not a housing programme.
158. This particular area, although it has
not been mentioned in the opening, abuts Milton Keynes and the
plan for Milton Keynes, which is quite separate, again with a
statutory body, is to double the size of that town in 20 years.
That is an incredible operation. The Chairman of the delivery
vehicle there is Sir Bob Reid, a national figure of substance.
Our view was for West Northamptonshire we need to make sure that
growth is managed and sustainable so they get the full benefit
of managed growth and they do not suffer because of the massive
growth that is taking place within the Milton Keynes/South Midlands
growth area, so that we get proper management of these huge brownfield
site developments in Northampton itself. It was alluded to in
the opening statement that in Northampton itself the amount of
brownfield is something like 310 hectares.
159. MR DRABBLE: If we look at tab 20,
we can possibly see some of the comparative figures.
(Lord Rooker) One
can see in ----
160. MR DRABBLE: If you start off just
looking at a big city, Newcastle-on-Tyne, page 341, ten lines
down from the top of the page.
(Lord Rooker) 307
hectares.
161. MR DRABBLE: The second to right-hand
column is the total for brownfield land in Newcastle in hectares.
(Lord Rooker) 307
hectares.
162. MR DRABBLE: If we go on, just to
get some sort of comparative picture, to page 343.
(Lord Rooker) The
City of Leicester has 145 hectares of brownfield. About ten or
12 lines down is Northampton with 324 hectares. A place like Northampton
has got far more brownfield than Newcastle-on-Tyne. One can see
the City of Nottingham has 182. In the middle of the page there
is Coventry at 228. The operation, the scale of brownfield land
in Northampton, formerly used by industry, and for lots of reasons
we all understand no longer is, is very, very substantial indeed,
far beyond the means of a relatively small council. It would swamp,
as indeed I think you will hear from Towcester colleagues and,
indeed, from Daventry as well, the scale of the operation in terms
of their own infrastructure, of their staff and the ability to
negotiate with the private sector. We are talking about international,
multinational private sector in some cases, employing all the,
if I might say so, whiz kid lawyers and barristers and planning
engineers to get the maximum benefit for the company. It is very
important that we have a delivery vehicle that can negotiate strongly
and get the best deal for the public out of the exploitation of
these brownfield sites so that money comes back into the economy
to pay for the social infrastructure and the transport infrastructure.
163. MR DRABBLE: In terms of the sorts
of projects that ODPM has already been involved in, just to get
a feel of what is possible in these areas, if we just look at
what has been done already, if we can look at tab 18, there is
a series of projects which are already supported by ODPM on the
ground.
(Lord Rooker) This
is a selection in this particular area for the urban development
area and obviously there are many, many others from the expenditure
that we had across the Milton Keynes/South Midlands and, indeed,
other growth areas. There are one or two I will just refer to.
There are community engagement studies looking at how we maximise
community participation. At the top of the second page, 305, there
is a substantial major project to reclaim and reuse brownfield
sites and one can see the scale of the ODPM grant there of £17
million. There is a large project in one area to get access to
land that requires a bridge across a railway, a new station and
to cross a river. It is very substantial but it will make the
development sustainable. Without that, there would be massive
congestion and other issues. Of course, there is job creation.
In the final column we have identified a couple of sites which
are in preparation for greenfield but I would advise you that
we do not appear to have spent any money on preparing to build
houses on greenfields. It is an omission that I am quite pleased
about.
164. MR DRABBLE:
The scale of what is going on, if we look at the totals for a
minute, on the second page, page 305, we can see the total of
ODPM grant funding already in Northampton at nearly 50 million,
is that right?
(Lord Rooker) Yes,
correct.
165. MR DRABBLE: I have been told that
is wrong. We should cross out the 49 million and write 32 million.
(Lord Rooker) That
is due to the fact that the County of Northamptonshire has had
so much of the ODPM money, the figures do move. It has had more
of the growth money than any of the other growth areas simply
because of the kinds of projects that they are delivering.
166. MR DRABBLE: In terms of the emphasis
on greenfield or the emphasis solely on housing, what has happened
in Thurrock in terms of the first project that Thurrock has taken
forward? There is an Urban Development Corporation established
there, is there not?
(Lord Rooker) Yes.
Parliament has agreed two Urban Development Corporations in the
Thames Gateway, one in East London and one in Thurrock, the rest
of them are different kinds of vehicles, again done on a consensual
basis. One of the first major projects is not a housing project,
although there will be substantial housing in the area, it is
a visitor's centre for Rainham Marshes. This is a Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds project designed to improve access
to the principal environmental assets of that area. This was thought
to be very important and, indeed, as part of the Milton Keynes/South
Midlands area there was a green agenda for our initial expenditure,
including access to the River Neane and the regional park, the
Marston Vale Forest and a whole host of other green issues which
we thought were a priority in getting sustainable communities.
167. MR DRABBLE: The role of the Urban
Development Corporation in doing this, can you just say a word
about this?
(Lord Rooker) The
argument might be you are doing all this, why do you need a delivery
vehicle, but these are projects, many of which were ready to go
ahead, that were a gleam in people's eyes and when the Sustainable
Communities Plan was published and we knew we had got money we
could talk to our partners about how we would do this early on.
The Government expenditure is done on a three year programme anyway
and this project is a 20 year project at least. It is important
to give comfort to all the sectors, not least the private sector
which is going to share the programme. It is pretty crucial we
do that and, therefore, in the intervening period and in the current
spending round, where we have money from the current spending
programme announced by the Chancellor in the summer which we have
not divvied up at the present time, we want to get the maximum
value out of the public expenditure and because of the scale of
the problem in this case, the complexity, the cross-local authority
boundaries and the interaction between Towcester, Daventry and
Northampton so that they are not left isolated, that can best
be done by a highly managed process from the centre, ie an Urban
Development Corporation, but done in partnership and done by local
people as well.
168. MR DRABBLE: Do you want to say
something more directly on the issue of community involvement?
How do you see the relationship between the local authorities,
the UDC and the community?
(Lord Rooker) All
I can say to the community is to judge us, if you like, not so
much by what we say but by what we have done. There are three
statutory bodies being set up in the growth areas at the present
time, two in London plus the new body under the powers of English
Partnerships for the centre of Milton Keynes, with planning powers,
development control powers, again all with the consensus of local
authorities, all with partnership arrangements, all with wide
representation from the relevant local authorities and sometimes
the adjoining authorities. All of these bodies are required by
the new Planning Act that went through the House earlier this
year, the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act, to have their own
statement of community involvement just as local authorities will
do. All I can say is it will not be like the Milton Keynes Development
Corporation part one that actually put the town together and it
will not be like the London Docklands Development Corporation.
169. We have a lot of experience, under the
previous government as well, and I think there have been development
corporations - the Heartlands in Birmingham and East Manchester
- which have been benign development corporations, ie they have
not been imposed against the will of local people and sometimes
have shared planning power with local authorities. We have modified
the kinds of operations for these statutory bodies from those
initial new town development corporations so that these days they
are much more acceptable to local people and people will see the
benefits of them because local representatives are involved.
170. MR DRABBLE: What is the position,
as you understand it, in terms of membership of the UDC? Will
the local authorities have members on the UDC?
(Lord Rooker) One
can see from the letters they wrote originally what they wanted.
At the moment we have advertised, there will be open competition
and places will be reserved for the local authority representatives.
It is important that we get a wide view. It is important that
we get some independent voices as well and we get as good a cross-section
as we can but we do not have a massive body that cannot make decisions.
Obviously, subject to parliamentary approval, we have got a Chairman-Designate,
who the Committee will hear as a witness later today, and at the
same time when we advertised for that we advertised for other
people as well. The local authorities will be fully represented.
I cannot give a detailed list because I do not know the individuals.
There is no secret list in Whitehall. There is nothing on my desk
about who is going to get what place. Those decisions are nowhere
near ministers, it would be quite inappropriate at the present
time until Parliament has approved, or otherwise, the Urban Development
Corporation. I do implore that you do that because the growth,
as you can see, is taking place now and this vehicle that we are
trying to set up is not the cause of the growth.
171. MR DRABBLE: Give us your conclusion,
particularly in terms of the perception of community support and
why the UDC is important.
(Lord Rooker) When
you visit the area you will see that there is a shortage of housing
that is known in the wider South East, and I say that in the widest
sense. There are many, many actions taking place to bring in empty
properties in London, to bring in empty properties across the
country that have been left empty for no good reason, in the legislation
that is going through in the Housing Bill, to bring into being
properties above shops. There are umpteen programmes within Government,
within delivery agencies, within London and outside of London.
I will give you one thing that encapsulates this - it is part
of this growth area but not this UDC area - that was said to me
in the summer of last year when I visited Aylesbury, not natural
territory politically but I went privately in the car to have
a quick look round. I had not been there for donkey's years since
that was the way to London from Birmingham in the old days. I
went to meet the powers that be at Aylesbury, part of the Milton
Keynes/South Midlands. I was quite surprised at the presentations
I received from local government colleagues there, along with
their possible partners, about the way they embraced the growth.
They said this: "We want our town to grow for two central
reasons. First of all, other towns nearby are growing and if we
do not stay competitive we are going to lose jobs causing us to
be dormitory", but their second point was the clincher: "If
we can grow the town sustainably we can protect 105 villages".
That was what they said: "If we can protect the town and
grow the town, we can protect 105 villages because we can stop
developers coming in willy-nilly arguing for growth in villages
because there is a need for the housing. We can stop that because
we can show the town is growing sustainably" and there are
award winning developments in that part of Milton Keynes/South
Midlands.
172. We have got an overall plan. People say
"What is your plan?" and we have got a plan. It is dealt
with differently in different areas of the growth area and it
is all pulled together with the Sub-Regional Board, which I chair
three times a year with all the relevant bodies. We try to learn
from the experience of the last 30 years of people driven away
from their areas, people complaining about nowhere for their children
to live, they cannot afford to buy, there is a shortage of dwellings
for teachers, pressure on the hospitals and all that. I do not
say it is all being taken care of, but part of our current expenditure
in this area, for example, is an £800,000 study across the
Milton Keynes/South Midlands area about how we grow hospitals,
ie do we grow them all, do we grow one for specialists, do we
have a new one to meet the wider needs of that growth area knowing
what the growth is? This is massive within the scale of the Department
of Health expenditure but, again, with all of the relevant partners
involved we have to prove to local people that we know what we
are doing, that local people will make the key decisions and we
have learned from the lessons of the past. People will not accept
what I am say because "I am a minister, believe me",
I do not operate on that basis.
173. It is look at what we have done, not what
we say. What we have done so far in the expenditure and growth
area in terms of our green regeneration and our protection of
the landscape is to make sure we get better quality, higher density
housing and better transport links, we have to get it managed.
With all due respect, I have visited these authorities on more
than one occasion and I have seen many of the projects both at
Towcester and Daventry, it is the unanimous view from elected
representatives, who do not share all the same political views,
that they want to be part of this. If they are not, they see that
they are going to be left behind. That is absolutely crucial Otherwise,
we are doing a disservice to the people in those towns. These
are the issues before you this week and next week I hope you enjoy
your visits and get a buzz out of it like I do.
174. Finally, this is not something that has
just been dreamed up as a one-off. This document is the road map
of the government. It has dealt with the key decisions at the
highest level in the Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister.
Some of these projects will cost mega billions because they involve
river crossings in the Gateway. That does not impinge directly
on your decisions here but what is being looked at here is part
of a big picture that is managed and sustainable. We need all
the jigsaw pieces to fit together. We are not just thinking that
we need a UDC in these three towns and they will be left to get
on with it. We need these local decisions made as clear as possible
by the local people, giving a good message to the people who live
there, people who are going to live there and those who are going
to provide the jobs, either new jobs or seeking areas for expansion
in the area, and rightly so.
175. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I now invite
the Petitioners to cross-examine. Do not feel that you all need
to do so if you have no particular questions to put, but I shall
call each of the Petitioners in order. First, Weedon Bec Parish
Council, Mrs Carolyn Matthews.
|
