Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
14 JUNE 2004
MRS MARGARET
FORD AND
MR DAVID
HIGGINS
Q20 Sir Paul Beresford: What are you
going to with the gasometer?
Mr Higgins: On Greenwich, it remains.
Q21 Sir Paul Beresford: Because of English
Heritage?
Mr Higgins: It is part of the
site that is integral into the design and it works quite well.
Q22 Sir Paul Beresford: Would you have
had it there unless you had to?
Mr Higgins: That is a question
that evolved way before my time on the site.
Q23 Sir Paul Beresford: That was well
ducked!
Mrs Ford: Can I just answer that
because one of the things that is interesting about English Heritage
is that, in some cases like Park Hill in Sheffield that David
spoke about earlier, they have been extraordinarily helpful and
pragmatic around trying to get a really good quality use for Park
Hill and I find it frustrating that we have that kind of relationship
on the one hand and then you look at the listing of a ventilation
shaft at the Blackwall Tunnel right under the curtilege of the
Dome, for example, and I just do not understand it. I find that
more frustrating but, to be honest, in certain other regeneration
projects, we are actually finding them very, very pragmatic and
helpful.
Q24 Christine Russell: What I was going
to ask you about was all these surplus NHS sites that you have
recently acquired from the Department of Health. What plans do
you have for them?
Mr Higgins: The sites are in the
process of a heads of term agreement between the Department of
Health and our Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the first week in June, we were asked by our Department to
assist the Department of Health in evaluating the sites. So, the
prime relationship still remains between our Department and the
Department of Health but we are helping them with some of the
consulting work and appraisal of those sites and the Department
has also consulted with the regional development agencies to ask
their advice on which sites within the portfolio they themselves
may wish to become involved in.
Q25 Christine Russell: That was going
to be my next question. Obviously, some of those sites will probably
be disposed of to house builders but what will the criteria be
for disposing of sites to the RDAs?
Mr Higgins: Firstly, if you look
at roughly 100 sites, a reasonable portion of them, maybe 20%,
are still in operational use and would not be available for redevelopment
in the short term. Another reasonable proportion are significant
greenfield site and have significant restrictions on them. However,
there will be an immediate core of sites which will be readily
available for development. So, the most important thing that we
are looking at first is to overlay policy on those sites that
are immediately developable by the private sector, to look at
regional housing strategy, to look at planning polices and housing
grant, agree what those policy objectives are, put them in the
development brief for those particular sites and then take them
as quickly as possible back out to the private sector to be delivered
by a diverse group of private developers.
Q26 Christine Russell: Can I present
you with a conundrum and ask you how you are going to solve it.
One of those sites happens to me in my constituency and there
is a huge, huge need for affordable housing but my local authority
is being told by the county council and Government Office North
West, "You cannot build a single additional unit of accommodation
in Chester." What are you going to do in that case because
the housing need is there and the RDA may well be interested in
acquiring that site for purposes other than housing? How are you
going to solve that and at what point will you involve the local
authority in discussions?
Mrs Ford: Could I begin with that
and then hand over to David. I had a meeting with all of the RDA
chairs last Thursday morning to talk about this very issue and
we spoke about how we would do it most effectively and, frankly,
how we could get some momentum into the process because this portfolio
has now been dormant for two years since the original deal tried
to be done. I am quite keen to get on with it. The RDA chairs
were very firmly of the view that we should do what we would do
with the Coalfields Programme, which is treat it first of all
like a national programme and have EP lead with advice and guidance
from the RDAs on the regional economic strategies. I made it very
clear that the brief I had from ODPM was that this was a key lever
in trying to deliver the objectives of the sustainable communities
plan and that the first call on those sites would be to look at
how they could contribute to the housing agenda in those areas.
There was nothing in my mind from that discussion that suggested
that the RDA chairs were thinking about that portfolio for anything
other than first of all for housing use. So, that is the first
thing. The second thing is that, in the situation you describe,
what we would be looking at would be to look at the regional housing
strategies to see how these sites can contribute to that. I am
not familiar with the particular example of Chester but we would
want to see what that site can do there to alleviate issues of
affordability and key worker housing.
Q27 Christine Russell: How clear a steer
have you had from ODPM as to a proportion—and have you been
given a proportion—of the amount of affordable housing that
can be put on these sites?
Mr Higgins: We have not had a
direct steer; we are still working as an adviser to the Department
and it is still early days; the heads of terms are still in the
process of being finalised with the Department of Health. Clearly,
the objective of this major deal between the two departments was
to accelerate affordable housing in the area, so that has to be
a main objective. Importantly now, the Department is in the perfect
position to look at that because of its role with the Housing
Corporation and also its role in looking at the whole issue of
planning polices.
Q28 Christine Russell: Are there any
ongoing negotiations with any other ministries as to you taking
over the responsibility for their surplus land? Obviously, I am
thinking in particular of the MoD?
Mr Higgins: The Department of
Health still has 100 sites and I would suggest that 16,000 hectares
of land in and around major cities is probably unique in the size
of that portfolio. However, we have an excellent relationship
with the Ministry of Defence/Defence Estates. Our first transaction
of size was the RAF Locking arrangement. We have other work that
we are working with them on an advisory basis and working with
the Housing Corporation in fact on some other sites they have
and we are working on future sites. So, that is a very constructive
open relationship where we are working to look at other sites.
I doubt, in fact I am sure, that there is not a portfolio of the
size of the Department of Health.
Q29 Christine Russell: Can you share
with the Committee the details of the discussions you had with
the Housing Corporation to ensure that the funding will be available
because it is all very well to say, "Yes, the emphasis is
going to be on housing and particularly affordable housing on
these sites" but then you discover that, in the region, the
Housing Corporation does not have the money to fund the developments.
Are the discussions over the funding going in tandem?
Mr Higgins: Certainly we are sharing
with the Housing Corporation all of our plans on these sites going
forward. So, the process of housing associations applying for
ADP on particular sites obviously is a separate process. Importantly,
more and more Housing Corporation ADP are looking strategically
at public sector intervention and, on these particular sites,
it would make a lot of sense for the public sector in the form
of our Department to agree policy on these sites before releasing
them to the private sector.
Q30 Christine Russell: You did not answer
the question I asked earlier about the role of the local authorities
in these areas and how you are going to negotiate and consult
with the local authorities and what role you see the local authorities
have in bringing these sites forward and I am talking about the
surplus NHS land ones.
Mr Higgins: The Government Offices
have been advised and, in the same process of consultations which
happened over the last few weeks and have another few weeks to
go, the regional development agencies have been briefed as have
the Government Offices in the regions of these issues.
Q31 Christine Russell: What about the
local authorities who, at the end of the day, will give or not
give planning consent?
Mr Higgins: Of course and, at
the moment because it is still relatively discreet in terms of
confidentiality and in terms of the total arrangement, the final
commercial arrangements have not been finally agreed. So, when
those are agreed, the local authorities . . . What is more important,
when the first—
Q32 Christine Russell: Should the local
authorities not be asked, "What do you want? This land is
within your area." Should they not have a say in what they
want to see the land used for?
Mr Higgins: And they will certainly
and the Department will no doubt engage with them in that process.
Q33 Mr O'Brien: In the major cities and
in some of the sub-regions of the urban development agencies,
urban regeneration companies have been established and the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that this could be a good
thing and that we want to see more of them established. Does this
cut across the principle and the work of English Partnerships?
Mr Higgins: No, quite the contrary.
Nationally, one of our major programmes is 16 urban regeneration
companies in England. We hold national seminars and a national
conference annually and we disseminate best practice. These organisations
are doing exactly the same thing in each of the different regions,
so that there is a lot that they can learn from each other. We
are on all the boards except two and we have put application to
be on those soon. We are a funder from operating funding and we
invest in capital expenditure on a number of those URCs, so there
is an enormous amount of links between those URCs. We were actively
involved in the first three which led to the extension of that
in 1999 and the recent stock-take which has just been completed
I think set out the satisfactory progress that has been made on
the URCs to date.
Q34 Mr O'Brien: When did English Partnerships
decide that the urban regeneration companies' development will
not undermine your special status?
Mr Higgins: Would not undermine
our special status?
Q35 Mr O'Brien: In the past, it has been
stated that English Partnerships are concerned over the development
of urban regenerations because it could undermine your special
status.
Mrs Ford: I do not recognise that
quote; I hope it is not mine! I certainly do not recognise it
and it is not our position. I think we regard them as complementary
to what we do.
Q36 Mr O'Brien: We will obviously clear
that point because that is the information we have been given.
As you have pointed out, you have requested a seat on all of the
urban regeneration companies. Is that not stretching your resources
a little too far? You are on the Housing Corporation, you are
on the regional housing committees, you have a presence on the
sub-regions of the regeneration bodies, the RDAs, and now you
want to sit on the urban regeneration companies. Is this not going
to stretch your resources?
Mr Higgins: What it does need
for us to do is to keep a very close focus on it but it has caused
us in the last year in particular to reskill our organisation
because rather than having a lot more people in our organisation
who do individual projects, we have the capacity and the resources
now of 16 organisations across the country that, when we interface
with those organisations, we need to do it at a much more senior
strategic level rather than actually at a doing level. So, we
do not need a lot of planners or engineers every day, we need
people who can sit on boards and really add value to these urban
regeneration companies because remember that urban regeneration
companies do not have their own statutory powers, they borrow
or use their partners' power, the local authority or ourselves,
and equally they have a limited budget. They seek funds from their
shareholders essentially. It does mean reskilling and Margaret
was referring earlier on to the significant recruitment of very
senior people we had into the organisation last year.
Q37 Mr O'Brien: So, we are looking at
16 urban regeneration companies and that could double if these
are successful because the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that
the programme should continue. How would you go on then if there
is this extension/development?
Mrs Ford: If there were an extension,
we would simply continue to resource those as appropriate because
the other reason why it is important for us to be involved in
the URCs is that they are very important vehicles for English
Partnerships' grant funding and, in terms of following the public
pound as it were, it is important that we have senior executives
on those boards who can understand how that funding is being spent
and advise on that. So, we would welcome the extension of urban
regeneration companies where that was deemed appropriate and we
would make it a priority to resource those. We are not worried
about the extension of urban regeneration companies. We think
the ones that are there we have a really good and healthy relationship
with and I know that most of our colleagues enjoy being involved
with them, so I do not think that we would have any real concern
about the numbers accelerating.
Q38 Andrew Bennett: Do the people you
have on these boards always turn up?
Mrs Ford: I would need to go back
and check the records but I would certainly hope so.
Q39 Chairman: Trevor Beattie has said
that your role in the URC should be reinforced without elaborating
on that. Have you any ideas as to what that might amount to?
Mr Higgins: Only that we have
put forward to the Department that we join the remaining two URCs
which we are not currently represented on. The reinforcement would
apply to the whole issue of skills transfer and best practice
and we are putting significant time and resources into that.
| 
