8 Mar 2005 : Column 367WH
Westminster Hall
Tuesday 8 March 2005
[Mr. John McWilliam in the Chair]
M11 Growth Area
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Yvette Cooper.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): I am delighted to have secured this debate on the impact of the Government's policies on the M11 growth area and on my constituency in particular. For those who do not have the pleasure of knowing where my constituency is, Hertford and Stortford is in East Hertfordshire, which is the only rural district left in the county. As I shall explain, the Government's planning and development policies represent the greatest challenge in a generation to my constituents' environment and quality of life.
Indeed, the east of England plan, which puts those policies into practice, is currently out to consultation. For my constituency, it would mean 20,800 new houses or a 36 per cent. rise in population. We would have 47,000 extra people, using up to 28,000 more cars. The plan would mean 2,500 more peak-time commuters on a railway service that is already overstretched, as most hon. Members who use the line will know. It would also create the need for 3,700 extra school places, which would mean 300 more pupils for every secondary school in my constituency. Just as importantly, perhaps, the plan would mean the destruction of thousands of acres of green fields and the wildlife that lives in them. For those and other reasons, the plan is opposed by the overwhelming majority of my constituents. We believe that it is unnecessary and unsustainable, and that the process driving it is, frankly, undemocratic.
No one is suggesting that there should be no development; of course, there is a need to provide more housing for those on lower incomes. Yet the scale of the developments proposed is far in excess of the need in our area. Indeed, my constituents are not the only people withholding their support from the plan. Somewhat bizarrely, the sponsoring body itself, the East of England regional assembly, has withdrawn its support for the plan. Thus, we have the nonsense of a plan being promoted by a body that does not support it to a community that does not want it.
Underlying the regional plan are the Government's policies on the green belt and on what they like to call sustainable communities, and I want to examine those policies further. About two years ago, in, I think, February 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister proudly announced the launch of his sustainable communities plan. It was an ambitious statement, but it had some rather fundamental flaws. First—this may seem somewhat strange to hon. Members—there was no definition of what a sustainable community actually is. Secondly, the policy failed to incorporate the understood and accepted principles of sustainable
8 Mar 2005 : Column 368WH
development. Indeed, as the Environmental Audit Committee put it in its recent report,
Two years on, in January 2005, after much labouring on the issue and, no doubt, thousands of consultants' studies and investigations, the Deputy Prime Minister finally came up with a definition:
Wow! What a lot of money was well spent. I can see that we got good value for money and incisive thinking, but what does it mean in practice? What are the key determinants that make up a community that is deemed to be sustainable? How do we balance growth against protecting our environment? What does all this mean for my constituents and the constituents of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the plan's growth areas? For a sustainable communities plan to be worthy of its name, surely it should be founded on the environmental principles of sustainable development. Yet these policies lack that foundation. As the Government's own Environment Agency put it, the housing plans for the south-east and my area are "an environmental time bomb". Those are its words, not mine.
I shall talk briefly about green-belt planning. Ever since it was introduced by Duncan Sandys back in the 1950s, green-belt policy has been accepted across the House as a great success. It has contained communities and helped them to renew, and it has allowed us to prevent urban sprawl. In 2003, however, the Government changed the rules as part of their new plan. That went largely unnoticed by the experts, let alone the public. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government would
In other words, the policy has changed from protecting specific sites and is now based on the total acreage, but as hon. Members will know, the essence of a green belt is that it is the permanent prohibition of development in a specific location. For example, the metropolitan green belt in my constituency should be permanent to prevent London and towns and other areas in my constituency from becoming one large urban mass. Yet the Government's policy is that they could release such land if they were to re-badge land somewhere else in the region as green belt. I assume—perhaps the Minister will clarify this point—that if the Government were to de-designate a couple of hundred acres in east Hertfordshire from the metropolitan green belt, they could redesignate land around Peterborough and claim that they had fulfilled the policy. However, people would regard that as nonsense.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Surely there is another danger in that agricultural land that will be protected as such and would not be developed can be called green belt? Green belt can thereby be eaten up by re-branding agricultural land.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 369WH
Mr. Prisk : My hon. Friend highlights another problem with this policy change, whose implications are enormous. In principle, any land in any of the constituencies represented in the Chamber today that is currently designated green belt could be developed. That is why I argue that there is no longer a green belt, but an elastic band that is designed to stretch as far as possible to accommodate any change or proposal. That is a huge mistake.
Loosening the constraints on urban development undermines the redevelopment of existing towns. After all, why would property developers waste their time and money on a complex, time-consuming and less profitable urban renewal project when more profitable green-belt sites only a mile or so away might come on to the market? My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I have already seen speculators from abroad pegging out greenfield sites to encourage people in this process. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government have made the change and how she can justify it to my constituents.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument about the elastic belt of the Deputy Prime Minister. He is not the only one who holds the view that he has expressed. The Library has made it absolutely clear—I refer directly to what it has said—that the land that has been added to the green belt since 1997 is in areas where development pressure is not the greatest. That is exactly as my hon. Friend says, and it comes from an empirical source rather than a partisan one.
Mr. Prisk : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which highlights the fact that such a view is held not only by a small group, but by the professionals involved and the experts who study these issues.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that there is a 17.5 per cent. tax incentive to build on greenfield sites rather than to repair, convert and use existing buildings?
Mr. Prisk : I am aware that the Liberal Democrats are hoping to increase the tax on new homes by equalising the VAT levels.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Oh.
Mr. Prisk : I did not know that my hon. Friend was not aware of that, but that is the Liberal Democrats' proposal. There is a danger in such an approach, because many young first-time buyers who are hoping to buy new homes will face those costs, but I understand the underlying issue that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raises.
Given those flaws in the Government's policies, some of us had thought that they at least understood that none of their ambitions could be fulfilled without the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, Lord Rooker is on record as saying this in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee:
On the back of that assertion, he encouraged many members of the East of England regional assembly to back the regional plan by saying that the Government
8 Mar 2005 : Column 370WH
would of course fund essential infrastructure, and so the assembly backed the plan. Yet when the initial bid for funds, particularly for transport, was submitted, 75 per cent. of the value of the bid was refused. That is why EERA members have withdrawn their support. Will the Minister tell us why Lord Rooker made a promise that he could not keep? Why should we believe that bids for future years will fare any better?
There is one speculative development scheme that highlights all the worst aspects of these policies and how damaging they could be to our environment if they are not amended. The scheme in question is promoted by an oil company's pension fund, and it is a plan for a new settlement of at least 10,000 houses to be built on 3,000 acres of green belt. While the owner, BP, calls the development "Harlow North", hon. Members may be surprised to learn that it is not actually in Harlow. It is not even in Essex. Rather peculiarly, it will be built in Hertfordshire. First, the scheme relies on the release of at least 1,500 acres of green-belt land, and 3,000 acres of land in total. "BP New Town", as I have christened it—sadly, I suspect that that is what it will be known as—would swamp the villages of Eastwick and Gilston, High Wych and Hunsdon, and link Harlow with Sawbridgeworth, Ware and Hertford, making one long urban sprawl. That would result in the loss of some of the most beautiful landscape in Hertfordshire, and according to the expert report of the 1974 plan that last looked at Harlow's future, the damage to the character of Harlow would be "irreparable".
Harlow, as a 42-year-old new town, certainly needs renewing. I accept that, as do many local people. However, by creating a new settlement next door to Harlow, this scheme, which draws on some of the worst aspects of the Government's policies, would divert much-needed resources from the town's regeneration. It would be bad not just for the countryside, but for the town. As if that were not enough, BP's new town would be sited on a hill directly below Stansted's flight path. The roofs of some 10,000 homes—and, I assume, of 20,000 to 25,000 people—would be just 600 m beneath the wheels of incoming aircraft. Who on earth would want to live there?
The reality of the Government's policies on development along the M11 is that our communities would not be sustained; they would be swamped. In lacking the principles of sustainable development and in allowing urban sprawl across green-belt land, the Government's policies will be bad both for the environment and for the much-needed renewal of our existing communities. We need new homes, but we also need to ensure that our ambitions for growth do not ignore our environment and our quality of life. As they stand today, these Government policies are wrong in principle, and I believe that they will prove to be unworkable in practice.
9.44 am
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this important debate on an issue that has so many ramifications and
8 Mar 2005 : Column 371WH
that could have such a harsh impact on so many communities in Essex, Suffolk, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument—this point does not relate to what he is saying—I wish to say that this is a local debate, and that in the circumstances, having seen the hon. Members who wish to speak, I am content not to use Mr. Speaker's ruling in respect of limiting the winding-up speeches.
Mr. Burns : Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I rise both in sorrow and in anger about what the Government are seeking to do by imposing a top-down solution to house building that, frankly, is environmental vandalism on a scale that has not been seen since the introduction of the original planning laws in this country. The devastation that it will cause to environments throughout the region is incalculable, and it will never be possible to turn back the clock. Once greenfield and green-belt land has been built on and concreted over, there is no way for it to be successfully restored to its original condition.
The Chelmsford local authority area adjoins the M11 corridor and is part of the growth area for those horrendous plans. The impact will be particularly difficult in that area. We have been told that we have to produce 14,000 homes as part of the Government's schemes. That is unsustainable, unwarranted and grossly unfair. To add insult to injury, the Chelmsford local authority area has been used in some ways as a dumping ground for housing to fulfil the Government's diktat. As everyone accepts, 2,500 of the 14,000 houses being imposed have nothing to do with the local housing needs of the Chelmsford local authority area, or even of the mid-Essex area. They are being imposed on Chelmsford simply and solely to relieve the pressure on housing in the south of Essex. To my mind, that must be as wrong as the decision to put such a large scale of housing into one local authority area.
The sad fact is that nobody has given any thought to the implications that that will have with regard to the existing infrastructure. Seeking to relieve pressure in such a way in the south of a county logically suggests that the vast majority of the people who will live in the homes in question will probably work in the south of the county—particularly, in this case, in the Thames gateway, which is being developed at the moment. Such people will have to travel to work mostly by car, not by train, and that will cause even more congestion and problems for our transportation system in Essex.
On top of that, we do not have the sustainable infrastructure to carry the 14,000 houses. The policy of the last Conservative Government and this Government has been that there must be maximum use of brownfield sites. I suspect that no one disagrees with that common-sense policy. It is important that brownfield sites should be redeveloped rather than greenfield sites, or before they are moved on to.
Chelmsford local authority has spent a considerable amount of time successfully identifying brownfield sites in the borough and developing them to help meet the targets that have been thrust upon it. It has been imaginative and, as I have said, successful. However,
8 Mar 2005 : Column 372WH
I have to tell the Minister that there is a limit to the local authority's brownfield land, and that limit is well short of being able to accommodate the target of 14,000 houses that the authority has to fulfil. That means that greenfield sites in the borough will have to absorb the extra housing, and that will be a loss to the borough as more and more of them are concreted over.
We have an interesting situation in Chelmsford; where would the houses go? To date, no definitive decisions have been made, because two years ago, the incoming local authority threw out the structure plan proposed by the previous Liberal Democrat administration. That was an interesting episode in terms of how Liberal Democrats operate. There is a village called Boreham in the north-east of my constituency; it is a small, compact village community that identifies itself with its local population. It used to be a Liberal Democrat council seat, and when the Liberal Democrat councillor retired three years ago, forcing a by-election, the Liberal Democrats descended on the village, giving categorical assurances that none of the extra housing would be imposed on it. The electorate were wiser than the Liberal Democrats gave them credit for: they replaced the retiring councillor not with another Liberal Democrat, but with a Conservative, on a 30 per cent. swing.
Within six months, the Liberal Democrat council had drawn up its plans to place 2,200 houses in the village, despite the promises not to do so that it had given only five months before. Fortunately, the Liberal Democrat administration was thrown out by the general electorate of Chelmsford in the last local elections. The proposal, which was a breach of the voters' trust, was abandoned. Chelmsford went back to the drawing board and it is successfully going through the procedures. That does not detract, however, from the difficult decisions that will have to be taken as a result of the Government's diktat on how many houses we should have.
As to the knock-on effect, swathes of greenfield sites would be concreted over. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford rightly said, infrastructure would be needed to sustain those communities and help them develop. That includes the health service, education, the transportation system and water. There is a water shortage, and winters such as the one that we have just had are placing increased pressures on the eastern region and the south-east of the country, because of lack of rainfall. There are not enough natural resources to sustain such house building.
There will also be pressures on our budgets. Given the amount of house building going on already, it is extraordinary that the Chelmsford local authority area does not get extra help from the Department of Health in the way that other communities closer to the M11 do. When lobbied, the Department of Health has steadfastly refused to accept that the growth areas attached to the M11 corridor should get more funding to take into account the ever-increasing population. Because of house building on brownfield sites, there is already an ever-increasing population. In the past five years, the electorate in my constituency has grown from 75,000 to 81,000 people. That is 6,000 extra bodies, excluding children under 18, who are living in the area, and using and requiring the local services. But the Government are turning a blind eye to those increased
8 Mar 2005 : Column 373WH
pressures and demands, and they are refusing to help in the transition as the population increases. That must be wrong.
In the final analysis, it is totally wrong that a Government in Whitehall who, not unnaturally, are not familiar with every area of a town should impose their will on local people and local elected representatives, and say that an area has to take its proportion of the extra housing demanded in the area by central Government.
Mr. Prisk : My hon. Friend is representing his constituents powerfully and effectively, as always. Will his constituents be as concerned as mine that, unbeknown to them, the planning policies have changed? Instead of planning guidance being just that—non-statutory guidance—constituents will find that their local authority may have to put such housing proposals in place in future, even if they have elected a council whose clear policy is the reverse?
Mr. Burns : My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful and worrying point, and he is absolutely right. There is grave concern that the Government, through their constant interference, are placing more power at the centre in Whitehall, which can overrule representatives who were elected because they wanted to take one type of planning decision, but find that their hands are tied and that they are unable to take such action because of the decisions of central Government.
The other matter that causes grave concern and upset in my constituency is the role of the East of England regional assembly. It is unelected and it has made decisions that disregarded the interests of Essex, Hertfordshire and parts of Suffolk and south Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Prisk : I am almost hesitant to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but several constituents have expressed to me the worry that the crossover with the Government's policies on the standards board may mean that when councillors are campaigning on whether the assembly is wrong, they may preclude themselves from engaging in a debate in council in due course. There may be a bizarre scenario in which elected members of local authorities are precluded from participating in such activity.
Mr. Burns : Absolutely. As my hon. Friend will undoubtedly agree, such a development would be complete nonsense and a travesty of local democracy. We must face up to such matters, however, because we have a Government who are determined to interfere and lay down the law. My hon. Friends and I believe in local democracy and think that decisions should be taken locally; there should be bottom-up decisions, not superimposed top-down decisions. Local elected councillors and local communities have the best understanding of their area and its present and future requirements. They are far better qualified to make the decisions that best meet the needs and the future requirements of local communities than central Government, who probably have little knowledge of the local area and certainly have little interest in it.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 374WH
I believe passionately that what the Government are doing is wrong. It is dangerous because it will destroy so much of our environment. It will have the knock-on effect of impacting adversely on local communities as more urban sprawl leads to soulless communities that will have no true identity with their area. It is wrong that the Government should superimpose those decisions, which are irreversible, on communities that do not want them. In no way are they prepared to listen to a just argument or to think again, however passionate, reasonable and right the pleas are for them to do so.
9.58 am
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): This disastrous development is a catastrophe for the Hertfordshire countryside. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing such an important debate. All our local newspapers are running campaigns against the proposals. I suppose that the most common way in which to describe matters is that local residents are saying no to Prescottshire.
My constituency is the second largest in the home counties. The neighbouring constituency is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). He is also extremely worried about the proposals and has attended meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, the East of England regional assembly and others. We want to conserve the precious countryside in our constituencies.
Hertfordshire is already the most populated county. The villages and the small market towns that are threatened by the proposals are genuinely rural. They are the lungs of the county. Once we start fiddling about with the green belt to enable large developments to take place, we damage a precious and much-loved resource for local people throughout Hertfordshire. Let us consider the area of Cole Green and its five greens in the south of my constituency. Those areas have already had to put up with a great deal of gravel extraction over the years. To add on top of that the threat of extra housing development seems extremely unfair.
In Thundridge, we have recently secured the bypass, which makes that area much quieter for residents. The village is no longer divided by the busy A10. However, does it really have to tolerate extensive extra housing development? Standon and Puckeridge are other historic centres on the junction of the A10 and the A120. Are they expected to take hundreds of extra houses?
The Pelhams are also affected. The House should have great respect for Furneux Pulham because when Lord Monteagle lived there, he gave the alarm about the gunpowder plot. We could all have been blown up—well, not us but our predecessors—if it had not been for Lord Monteagle of Furneux Pelham.
Little Hadham is another small, but beautiful village. Then come Buntingford and Royston, both ancient market towns. Royston has a history of the Templars and the Royston cave is the only historic monument of its type in Hertfordshire. Down the A505 towards Letchworth, one goes through the historic market town of Baldock and on to Letchworth Garden City, the world's first garden city. Planners come to Letchworth
8 Mar 2005 : Column 375WH
from across the world to see how a garden city can be developed and matured properly. Along the way are the villages of Therfield, Sandon, Ashwell and Weston, which are all beautiful places with lovely countryside around them.
The Environmental Audit Committee considered the Government's so-called sustainable communities plan and found that it had not been thought through at all. No evidence had been taken about the environmental impact. The Committee wrote an incredibly critical, savage report attacking the Government's ignorant approach. I want to ask the Minister whether any serious thought has been given to the plans as they relate to one to another. The growth area that we are talking about—the M11 corridor—is next to, or quite close to, the growth area for Milton Keynes.
It is worth recording that the north of the M11 corridor has some large cities and towns, such as Peterborough and Cambridge, which are surrounded by sparsely populated areas. However, the south of the corridor, in Hertfordshire, is quite the opposite. It is made up of small market towns and villages, quite close to one another, and they are not large places. They have populations of 20,000 or 30,000.
The Government seem to think that we have got it wrong in Hertfordshire and that we ought to have large towns with sparsely populated areas around them that could be developed. That is exactly what they propose for Harlow and Stevenage—that Stevenage should have 14,400 extra houses tacked on the side. Interestingly referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, they will not be under the flight path for Stansted this time, but the flight path for Luton. Why should we change Hertfordshire from what it has always been—a tracery of lanes with small market towns and villages—into something like Cambridgeshire?
Mr. Prisk : As always, my hon. Friend highlights both the beauty of his constituency and why that should be preserved. There is another difference between us and Cambridgeshire; we are abutting London. The metropolitan green belt is the essence of why the pattern of communities that we have now is right. Does my hon. Friend share my view that if we were to follow the diktat of the reports presented by the Government, the danger is that we will get not a Cambridge with a sparse population around the edge, but one large urban mass from the Thames all the way up to Stansted airport?
Mr. Heald : That is exactly the point, and my hon. Friend puts it very well. If we develop the most densely populated county as though it were not, we will end up with something unbearable. As with the Harlow scheme, the scheme for Stevenage is to build the houses in the North Herts district rather than the Stevenage district. We will therefore end up with half of Stevenage in north Hertfordshire.
At the same time as the plan to develop Stevenage is the plan in the Milton Keynes growth area to develop Luton, which is the second largest conurbation in the eastern region. It needs development—no one could argue with that—but what will happen if we develop both Stevenage and Luton, given that they are only about five or six miles apart? We will end up either with the two merging or with competition that is damaging to one or the other.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 376WH
Did anybody think about what will happen on the border between the growth areas? It is silly to try to develop Stevenage and Luton in that way, side by side. As my hon. Friend said, there is a danger that we will end up with a conurbation that I would call "Hevenage"—Hitchin and Stevenage—but it could also be "Bevenage" if Baldock is included, or "Levenage" if Luton is included. There could be a massive conurbation in north Hertfordshire, which would impinge on the areas that are the lungs of the county. The villages that I have mentioned, which are also supposed to take extra housing, would be threatened. We would end up with a massive conurbation and every village and small community would have large numbers of houses tacked on to it. The area, which people value, would be spoiled not only for the people who live in the villages, but for those who go to the rural areas to walk and enjoy the countryside.
Mr. Prisk : Does my hon. Friend agree that there is illogicality at the heart of the Government's proposal? People want to go to districts such as East Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire because of the quality of the environment, so is it not ironic that the plan that seeks to respond to that demand will destroy the very reason that people go there?
Mr. Heald : Yes, of course. I have always thought it unfair on other parts of the United Kingdom to put all the effort, resource and money into the south-east and east of England. Surely, we ought not to knock down 400,000 houses in the north and put 400,000 houses in the south. That is nonsense. The Government need to get a grip of their regional policy and to allow the market to work; there is obviously a market in housing.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of resources. In the south of my constituency between Hertford and Stevenage, and in my hon. Friend's constituency, is the River Beane, which is very dry. It does not have the water it once did, and local residents are extremely worried about that, as is the River Beane Preservation Society. That problem reflects the fact that our area is the driest part of England. I cannot see where the water for the developments will come from. The Minister may say that it can be found and, of course, the water authorities have a statutory duty to achieve that result, but how will they get water down from the north of England to the south for these developments? There certainly is not enough water that can be brought up through boreholes; as I said, the River Beane is already short of water.
There is also a problem with roads. We are talking about the M11, but nearby is the A1(M). If the Minister were to go on the A1(M) one morning, she would see that it is already snarled up. It is extremely congested between our area around Baldock down to Stevenage and beyond, and coming into London. What is the plan to widen that road? I am not aware of any such plan, but there should be one. If the proposals are going to go ahead, money should be spent on the A1(M). Will the Minister tell us when the A1(M) will be widened, because we would love to know?
What about the trains? If there is to be this extremely large population increase, a lot of the extra people will want to travel to London to work. The Welwyn viaduct
8 Mar 2005 : Column 377WH
is narrow; it has two lanes for trains. If the number of trains going into London is to be increased, either that viaduct must be widened or longer station platforms must be provided so that the trains can be longer—and, in any event, extra power on the line will be needed. Will the Minister tell us when we will get those things, because we would like to know? If the Government are seriously considering building a second Welwyn viaduct, that would be very big news for the Hertfordshire Mercury.
Mr. Edward Davey : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Strategic Rail Authority recently published a report—I believe that the regional planning panel received it—that said that there was little or no prospect of any major rail investment in the M11 corridor? Therefore, he makes a powerful point.
Mr. Heald : I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it is marvellous that he is such an expert on this subject, and what he says is right. I had a meeting last Friday with representatives of the rail company to talk about those problems, and about improving Letchworth station. They said that we might have a better idea about whether we will get longer platforms by 2012. That is almost eight years away, which is quite a long time. I mentioned the Welwyn viaduct, and the representative from Network Rail almost fell off his chair at the thought of the hundreds of millions of pounds that would need to be spent to build a second one.
Mr. Prisk : It is the wrong kind of money.
Mr. Heald : It is certainly a lot of money. Will the Minister tell us what is to happen with regard to our trains?
We are 300 doctors short for the next three years, so we need to recruit 300 doctors in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire over that time. How many doctors does the Minister think we will need to cope with the M11 corridor growth, and where will they come from? The current plans of the work force study are based on the hope that some asylum seekers will be doctors and that they might fill the gap. Is the Minister relying on people who might accidentally come to this country as a way of us getting the more than 300 extra doctors that we will need?
At present, if people in Royston want to join a dentist's list they have to travel 25 miles to Bishop's Stortford, so it is clear that there are not enough dentists either. In every area of Hertfordshire, every kind of service or facility that someone might need is already stretched. We pay a lot more tax than other parts of the country, but we get a lot less for our it. Can the Minister tell us what will happen about services?
In Tewin in my constituency, speculators have erected fences all over a lovely hill in the Mimram valley. That looks terrible; the hill has been divided up into little plots even though it is in the green belt and, in theory, cannot be developed. Such things are being done on the back of the Deputy Prime Minister having said that the green belt is elastic; people buy up any bit of
8 Mar 2005 : Column 378WH
agricultural land, put up fences all over it, and then pretend that it may have development potential in the future. That is what is happening in Tewin and Braughing. What will the Minister do about that?
This whole scheme is ill-thought through, as the Environmental Audit Committee said. None of the questions about infrastructure have been answered. The green belt seems to count for nothing. I join the local papers in saying no to Prescottshire.
10.14 am
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this important debate, which gives us a chance to air our views on this Government development proposal. I would like to start off by taking an overview, because the Government have four growth areas around London and the south-east. The Thames gateway is the largest such area, but there is also Ashford, Milton Keynes and the M11 corridor, and of those four growth areas, the M11 corridor is the least proven and the most controversial.
I am certainly in favour in general of the things that are proposed in the Thames gateway and around Ashford and Milton Keynes. There are problems with transport infrastructure in all three of those growth areas. There are one or two problems with flooding in the Thames gateway, with the Association of British Insurers saying that perhaps 10,000 homes would be in danger of flooding if the plans were to go ahead. There are individual problems in those three growth areas, but, on the whole, they seem to make some sort of sense, and the local councils have, in general, been prepared to accept some of the thrust of the Government's policy.
However, the M11 corridor has generated a degree of controversy that we have not seen for a long time. The three Conservative Members' speeches explained why that concern is so deeply felt. While I am giving the overview of the sustainable communities plan, I want to take up the point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made about other parts of the country.
There is no doubt that there are other parts of the country that would welcome more homes, less demolition and more economic regeneration. My colleagues on Liverpool city council have been doing a tremendous job in the past six years of turning that city around and attracting more than £2 billion of private sector investment in the city centre alone. With the award of the status of European capital of culture, Liverpool is experiencing a big regeneration. Yet Mr. Prescott is asking parts of Liverpool to have more homes demolished.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Hon. Members should refer to other Members by their constituencies or the title of their office, not by name.
Mr. Davey : I was tempted by the new name of the county, which I had not heard before, so you were right to pull me up on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is no doubt that, although some demolition in the city of Liverpool was accepted by the community, the Deputy Prime Minister has pushed ahead with a much higher number of demolitions, which goes against
8 Mar 2005 : Column 379WH
the wishes of the community. It seems absurd, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has said, that we should force homes on areas that clearly do not want such a high number, and demolish them in areas that have the potential to attract more people; they are quality homes, and it sometimes costs £60,000 to demolish a home in pathfinder scheme areas. The Government have the overall balance of the sustainable communities plan wrong, particularly with respect to the M11 corridor and cities such as Liverpool.
To focus on the M11 corridor, some of the greatest concerns that have been expressed to me by council leaders such as Lorna Spenceley of Harlow or Alan Dean of Uttlesford are about lack of local democratic involvement. Hon. Members have this morning talked about the need for elected representatives and local communities to have a real say, so that the decisions are local ones, not imposed ones.
It is bizarre that we spent 18 months passing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which the Government told us would set up new local development frameworks, with community involvement statements and so on, but at the same time a plan is being pushed forward to override all that. It is nonsense. A different approach would be to persuade and incentivise people and to involve them in planning.
For example, it is clear that there are small villages and market towns in parts of the M11 corridor that are prepared to accept some housing. There is no doubt about that. The people there see a need for local housing and regeneration and a need to make vulnerable rural settlements sustainable. However, that is a matter of an affordable housing programme—one that is diffused, not focused in one or two areas.
Mr. Heald : I recently discussed this matter with Councillor Mike Carver, who is the leader of East Hertfordshire council, and Councillor F. John Smith, who is the leader of North Hertfordshire council. They made the point that only about 60 per cent. of the housing in question is being provided to meet local need. About 40 per cent. of it is being provided on the basis that the Government want to attract people into our area. Can the hon. Gentleman understand why they would want to do that?
Mr. Davey : There is a concern—although I am not sure that it has been expressed in these terms this morning—that Stansted, for example, will attract huge amounts of development. The Government are trying to plan houses for an extension of an airport that is not wanted by local people, which is probably the most unsustainable form of transport infrastructure imaginable and which is not the top priority for the area. The whole idea is perverse.
Mr. Heald : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me solve the mystery of why the East of England Development Agency thinks that we need about 500,000 new homes, on the basis of a second runway at Stansted, but the east of England regional assembly also thinks that we want 500,000 new homes, yet does not take account of the second runway. How does the hon. Gentleman think that that happened?
8 Mar 2005 : Column 380WH
Mr. Davey : The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to describe me as an expert earlier, but he was in danger of going beyond my detailed knowledge of parts of the proposal. I am afraid that I cannot address the quandary that he raises. I do not know whether he was asking a rhetorical question, but I take the point about the kinds of homes that are needed in such areas.
One of the problems with the sustainable communities plan is that we have adopted a top-down, predict-and-provide approach towards the homes that are needed. There has not been a bottom-up linking with the question of who will live there, what types of homes people actually want and what is the housing need there now.
The evidence that I have seen suggests that there are problems in rural communities and market town communities with people who are hidden homeless— adults still living at home and older people wishing to downsize yet facing a lack of available properties. A sustainable approach that worked with the community would be based on a different way of thinking about the types of houses that are needed and where they should be sited. That is why local government should be involved. If the decisions are taken based on a report by Professor Barker or some analysis by the ODPM, we are likely to get things wrong, because we will not be focusing on local needs and the local situation.
I have talked to local councillors in the region and it is interesting that some say that there are small villages crying out for a little bit of affordable housing—on exception sites, for example. There is huge local support in some places for perhaps half a dozen or a dozen homes, to support the local services—the post office, pub or school. Some services in such areas are not overstretched and need more people to support them.
If the Government had taken that approach—building up from little pockets—they could probably have provided a solution that did not extend to the 500,000 homes proposed in some of the plans that hon. Members have mentioned. The Government could have dealt with the need in those areas and provided real sustainable community planning.
Mr. Prisk : The hon. Gentleman is rightly highlighting a number of issues, not least the democratic deficit and the ability of local people to get involved. Does he share my view that it is time to scrap the regional assemblies?
Mr. Davey : That was a good try. There is a case for having some sort of body that takes a wider view, and I can give an example from the area. There is concern that some local authorities are saying that homes for the workers who will be needed for the Cambridge science arc development should be built in other local authority areas. There is a need for local people to come together, across local authorities. There is therefore a role for a body such as the regional assembly.
The assemblies should be far more accountable, although we cannot now look to directly elected regional assemblies—the buck has passed on that model. However, I am concerned that the current regional assemblies have people on them who have vested interests that are not covered by Nolan requirements for declaration and people who are not accountable in any way—indirectly or otherwise. There
8 Mar 2005 : Column 381WH
is a case for a big reform of regional assemblies to ensure that they are better linked to local people. The need for a strategic view on some of the issues is important for local people. If things do not come from them, they will come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That is the real concern. So, people who are talking about getting rid of regional assemblies are talking about giving more power to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Prisk : People in the M11 area, and in my constituency in particular, are looking for someone who will give back powers over what is built and where to the people of Hertfordshire. Is that not what we should do?
Mr. Davey : I believe that some of the planning powers that were given up to the regional planning boards under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 should be handed back down to county councils, and we pressed that position in the other place.
Mr. Davey : Some of them came down from the ODPM to the regional planning boards under that Act and some came up from county councils. Therefore, it depends which powers we are talking about.
When that legislation went through this place, we wanted the powers not to go up from county councils. We did not get support from Conservatives in the other place on that point, and the hon. Gentleman should be wary of that. We tried to stand firm, but, unfortunately, we did not get the support and the measure was included in the Act. We very much regret that, and we wish that we had had support from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the other place.
Mr. Heald : Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that the only reason why the counties are even consulted now is that Conservative amendments were passed in the other place which provided for that to happen?
Mr. Davey : The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful, because the powers that he talked about were a shoddy compromise. We wanted to ensure that county councils did not lose the powers at all, but they were taken up. We were prepared to stand and fight on that one. Unfortunately, his colleagues were not.
We can welcome some aspects of the M11 corridor development, particularly those around Harlow. I think that there is some cross-party support. Harlow, as a new town, has seen deterioration in its housing stock, and in some of its leisure services and social infrastructure. There is a real case for investment there. Harlow could benefit from extra homes and extra infrastructure investment.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was right to warn that while regeneration and extra investment is needed, how that is done is crucial. North Harlow/ BP new town would not be sustainable. One must ensure that we are not being told where to put houses by oil companies; the local people must make the decisions.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 382WH
I also want to focus a little more on infrastructure. As I said, the likelihood of railway investment is minimal. The investment funds that the Government have been putting forward for transport infrastructure are also minimal. There seems to be no real strategic long-term thinking about the infrastructure needs of the area—besides making it worse with the investment in Stansted. The Government must go back to the drawing board.
What Mr. Justice Sullivan said about the case on Stansted was interesting. He said that the Government had overstepped the mark by trying to specify all the detail about the second runway. They were not prepared to leave some of it to local government and they ignored the principle of subsidiarity. They should learn a lesson from that, and, in future, ensure that such infrastructure and transport decisions take account of local opinion.
However, when one is criticising the Government, one must put forward an alternative. That there has not been a clear alternative is my only criticism of what we have heard so far today. We must recognise that young people need homes, and that there is an affordable housing problem and some thought needs to be given to it. The Liberal Democrats have looked at a range of policies on using existing homes, buildings and land in our urban conurbations. We have looked at getting the tax incentives right and ensuring that the public sector uses its massive land holdings more effectively. There is a strong case for cutting VAT on repairs and conversions to give the private sector a real incentive to reuse buildings that are lying idle. I have such buildings in my constituency; they are a real eyesore and a waste of land. We need that alternative.
We also need to come up with innovative housing plans to ensure that the affordable housing that is built remains affordable and available to local people. My party has published its housing policies, and we have talked about mutual homes, about giving a boost to shared equity and about the golden share schemes that Liberal Democrat administrations have piloted in places such as south Shropshire. Our proposals provide a way of dealing with some of these problems that is far more sustainable and involves local elected representatives. There is time to think again on these key issues, and I hope that the Government will do so.
10.31 am
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. This is a debate about the environment and protecting the green belt; about local democracy and what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) described as the need for a bottom-up, rather than a top-down approach to deciding such important matters; and about developing genuinely sustainable communities and the missed opportunity for urban and suburban regeneration.
My hon. Friends have made a convincing case. Could there be any better representatives of their respective constituencies than the three who spoke from the Conservative Benches? I doubt it very much. They have described the Government's plans as a savage attack on the character not only of the countryside, but of existing settlements. The figures that they quoted were stark. My
8 Mar 2005 : Column 383WH
hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke of a 36 per cent. growth in population in his constituency, with 3,700 extra school places needed. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford spoke of 14,000 new homes in his constituency and described the plans as unsustainable, unwanted and unfair.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) painted a dreadful picture, and the Minister will have been as shocked by it as you will have been, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He spoke of a sprawling, ugly, soulless conglomeration of hastily built properties, which will damage for ever the character of the beautiful part of our country that he represents. He told us that his constituency would require 300 more doctors over the next three years. I was appalled at the prospect of people in that part of Britain being in desperate circumstances but not being able to access the medial care that they needed.
Conservative Front Benchers share the views expressed by my hon. Friends. We also share those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who has been mentioned in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who, in the interests of his constituents, is fighting a vigorous campaign against the Government's proposals to concrete over much of his constituency. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to bulldoze the north of England and concrete over the south.
Resistance is not limited to the Opposition Benches, however. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee has considered the matter, and its damning indictments of the Government are worthy of amplification here. The Committee said that
"The impact of developing so many homes in the South East, one of the most densely populated regions in Europe, has not been fully assessed . . . The additional homes could place excessive demands on the environment, leading to the loss of green-field sites and excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources . . . The Government . . . has yet to estimate the costs of providing the transport links, health care, education and all the other facilities which new neighbourhoods require."
The Environmental Audit Committee was equally critical of the Government, saying that
It said that the Government had yet to produce a definition of sustainable communities. Imagine a sustainable communities plan with no real definition of sustainability or what such communities comprise.
Mr. Prisk : My hon. Friend is describing the problem eloquently, but perhaps I can cause him even more concern: such a definition is absent two years after the policy was announced.
Mr. Hayes : In my judgment, the Government announced this policy without assessing fully its likely impact. That is precisely what Labour-dominated Select
8 Mar 2005 : Column 384WH
Committees have concluded about their own Government's appalling policy. The Environmental Audit Committee said:
"There is disturbing evidence that the sum so far allocated for infrastructure funding will not be anything like sufficient to meet the requirement generated by the Growth Areas."
That criticism comes not only from Opposition Members; throughout the country, communities are beginning to realise what these proposals—the communities plan and the growth areas—mean for them, their communities and their quality of life. In the Medway area, local campaigners such as Mark Reckless, Tim Butcher and Anne Jobson are campaigning with local people against those prospects. My hon. Friends are campaigning in Essex and Hertfordshire, and in Harlow people such as Robert Halfon are taking up the campaign on behalf of local people. In Northampton, Brian Binley and others are doing so. People are leading this campaign across the country.
Mr. Heald : My hon. Friend should not forget Brooks Newmark, a good campaigner on this issue in Braintree.
Mr. Hayes : Indeed. I am hoping to visit Braintree and many of those other communities in the next couple of weeks to look at the work being done there.
There are alternatives, and they have been teased out of me by my hon. Friends. Of course, Conservatives believe that the provision of new housing could play an important part in building, regenerating and sustaining genuine communities, but for that to happen we must ensure that we have the right homes in the right places. An agreed settlement between central and local government on housing growth should balance the need for extra houses with a consideration of landscape and the character of existing settlements. That balance would lie at the heart of a genuinely sustainable housing and planning policy.
I shall pose a series of questions to the Minister. The Conservatives will scrap the communities plan and focus on incremental development of existing settlements. We will protect the green belt more than the Government have done—we could hardly protect it less; my hon. Friends have rightly identified abuse of the principle of the green belt—by putting in place more and tighter green belts. Why do the Government not reappraise the designation of brownfield sites? If 50 per cent. of all brownfield sites in the south-east that are intended for employment purposes were instead used for housing, it would yield 27,000 extra homes at current density levels.
As I said last week, Barratt Homes tells me that 80 per cent. of its new houses are already built on brownfield land. In the south and south-east, that figure is 90 per cent. The truth is that many more houses could be built on brownfield sites. We could help developers by: reforming the planning system sensibly; making more land available through re-designation; freeing-up public sector land; and lifting some of the burdens and regulations that hamper good practice and enterprise as only Labour Governments can.
Why do the Government not streamline the planning process for regenerative brownfield development by standardising the processes for gaining planning
8 Mar 2005 : Column 385WH
permission under section 106 agreements? Why will they not put in place fiscal incentives to bring empty homes back into use—there are 700,000 empty homes across the country, according to the Empty Homes Agency? Why will the Government not scrap the prescriptive bureaucratic standards that stifle innovation, hamper brownfield development and promote monotonous, uniform housing estates? We should emphasise quality of design, rather than compliance with Government diktats. Local authorities should be encouraged to acquire the skills to devise in communion with local communities and developers plans that satisfy the need for housing development without compromising the local environment and quality of life.
Why will the Government not establish more and tighter green belts, and redefine suburban back gardens so that they are protected from undesirable development—town cramming, as it has become known under this Government? Why will they not extend the rural exceptions policy to allow small-scale expansion of villages with a mix of new homes, so that we have market housing cross-subsidising the social homes that can play such a useful part in servicing local needs? We must focus development where infrastructure can support it, so why will the Government not ensure that local authorities make infrastructure capacity a key factor in the development control process?
Today's debate has highlighted a Government policy that is undeliverable, unsustainable, unneeded and unwanted. Britain needs the right homes in the right places. It needs development on a human scale—incremental, organic, inspiring and shaped by local people. Britain needs to support house builders to regenerate urban and suburban Britain, and it needs to value the land and safeguard our countryside. There is a shining light at the end of this dark Labour tunnel, and the people of Hertfordshire, Essex and other communities across Britain will be able to bask in that light when this Government are driven from office and an enlightened housing and planning policy is put in place.
10.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing this debate, which provides a useful opportunity to clarify some of the issues relating to the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth area, to our approach to achieving sustainable communities in the wider south-east and to the Government's position on key issues such as infrastructure and the environment, which are particular concerns in the east of England.
Hon. Members will be aware that I am constrained in what I can say at this stage, particularly about specific locations that they may have raised and about individual problems about which they may be concerned. That is the case because the draft east of England plan was published in December for public
8 Mar 2005 : Column 386WH
consultation. That consultation closes next Wednesday, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on the detailed issues or on specific locations at this stage.
Mr. Prisk : I should like to ask the Minister about that, although I do not want to delay the debate. It has come to light that that consultation is flawed. I hope that when it is concluded, she will accept from me an itemised list of ways in which my constituents have not been able to participate.
Yvette Cooper : If the hon. Gentleman wants to send us information, we shall certainly look at and try to address it, as we always do whenever hon. Members across the House raise concerns. I shall say a little more about the consultation and planning process shortly.
We need to be clear about our starting point: we need to provide more homes for families across the south-east. People are living longer and more people are living alone. Without more homes, people will not be able to live in the communities where they grew up and key workers will not be able to find homes in the communities where they need to work.
Mr. Heald : The need that the Minister has just outlined is a requirement for 60 per cent. of the houses in the east of England plan. Why must we have the other 40 per cent.?
Yvette Cooper : The problem faced by Conservative Members here is that they simply do not recognise the close links between the housing market, housing supply and the regional and national economy in this country. They need to recognise the importance of the links with economic growth and the need to support economic growth and prosperity in the region.
Mr. Burns : Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper : I know that hon. Members want to ask me questions, but they have all had the chance to speak and I have a series of things to say in response. I shall take this last intervention, and then I shall have to make some progress.
Mr. Burns : I am very grateful to the Minister. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), why has it been accepted that 2,500 of the houses that Chelmsford is expected to build are not to meet the current or future needs of local people, but to relieve pressure on house building in another part of the county?
Yvette Cooper : At this stage in the process, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual proposals or on specific locations. However, let me again remind the hon. Gentleman of the broad issues. More housing is needed in the eastern region, the south-east and London. We cannot ignore that fact. If we do, it will be to the detriment not only of those who want to get into the housing market but cannot afford to do so, but of our public services, because we will not be able to recruit the people whom we need if they cannot afford anywhere to live. Such an approach would also
8 Mar 2005 : Column 387WH
impact on the number of people who are homeless or in temporary accommodation and harm the economy, affecting the prosperity of the region and the nation.
We are already falling short of what is needed. In the past five years, 550,000 new households have formed in the wider south-east—London and the eastern and south-east regions—but fewer than 400,000 new homes have been built. In the past 10 years, 12.5 per cent. fewer houses have been built than in previous decades. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke of allowing the housing market to work. Unfortunately, the evidence of the Barker review is that the housing market is not working in the way that is needed. The rising house prices across the country are not triggering the necessary increase in housing supply; they have not done so for 10 years. The issue needs to be confronted, and hon. Members must recognise that.
Mr. Hayes : The Minister has been generous in giving way, and I hope that she will agree that I was, too. She will understand that demand-side factors—things such as the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles, the level of borrowing secured against housing equity, the net migration into the country, as recognised by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and interest rates—drive up house prices and keep them up. To address affordability by supply-side means would be to build countless houses. That would be neither sustainable nor deliverable, and it would take a very long time. Why does the Minister not address some of the demand-side factors?
Yvette Cooper : I know that Opposition Members have tried to maintain that the only problem in the housing market is on the demand side, and that the issue can somehow be resolved by demand-side measures. Of course, house prices are determined by the relationship between demand and supply, and there are issues in relation to housing as an investment good in various ways. Nevertheless, housing is also a critical consumption good. We cannot deny that; the Barker review was very clear about it.
Given a choice between the economic analysis of the Barker review, produced by a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, and the economic analysis of Conservative Front Benchers, with their previous record on economic policy making, I would go with Kate Barker. The Opposition have to recognise the relationship between the housing market and the economy, and the fact that the housing market is not delivering enough houses to meet need. That problem will get worse unless serious action is taken. The Conservative party's position of simply abandoning the sustainable communities plan, making huge cuts in the sustainable communities budget and thinking that the matter can be resolved in an incremental way is a position for people living on another planet. It is not realistic, given the scale of the problem and its impact on homelessness, house prices, public services and the regional economy.
The east and the south-east already face serious housing pressures. Hon. Members have referred to the need to recruit more doctors and public service professionals. That is a serious issue, but we will have far greater problems recruiting nurses, teachers and health
8 Mar 2005 : Column 388WH
professionals across the board if we do not address the housing problems across the region. Several speakers, including the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), have said that we need to offer alternatives, but the Opposition parties are not offering alternatives. Of course we need to do more to increase development on brownfield sites. We have already substantially increased the amount of development on such sites, and we need to do everything that we can to increase that development.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned building more on employment land. I agree that we need to reappraise employment land in many areas, but he will agree that we should also recognise the need to maintain it and not simply develop dormitories without employment land closely linked to the development of new housing. Nevertheless, we agree that employment land in many locations may be more appropriate for housing. That is exactly why we made changes to planning policy guidance note 3, which was published earlier this year, to require local authorities to do that. So we agree that other measures also need to be taken, but we simply cannot avoid the important need to expand housing in the southern and south-eastern regions.
Several hon. Members have voiced concerns on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the concerns of his constituents in East Hertfordshire, which is the least deprived district in the east of England and the eighth least deprived in England as a whole. Like every other part of the east and south-east, it has seen a significant rise in house prices, which are a problem for people who live there and have an impact on the ability to recruit public sector workers. That is why all districts throughout the region need to work together to address the matter. Opposition Members have also voiced concerns about the regional planning process.
Mr. Prisk : I fully accept, as does East Herts district council, the need to provide homes for people who are described as being on lower incomes and as needing affordable homes, but the independent housing survey 2004 showed that we would need to build 594 homes per annum over the next 20 years or so to accommodate all the households that will be needed. Yet the Government's plan suggests that we should build at twice that rate. Why?
Yvette Cooper : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government's proposals were based on analysis of the overall need to increase housing throughout the region. That is what we need to do. We cannot simply sit by and allow the problems with the housing market, homelessness and economic constraints to continue. I cannot reiterate enough to Opposition Members the importance of the relationship between housing and the overall regional economy. We cannot allow the situation to continue; we need to recognise the importance of responding to housing market pressures throughout the area, not simply in individual districts operating in isolation.
Hon. Members talked about the regional planning process. The east of England plan was developed by local partners, and it will be tested by an independent public examination. The plans are not being imposed by
8 Mar 2005 : Column 389WH
the Government through the back door; they are being developed through an extensive and rigorous process that is open to public scrutiny. The whole process started back in September 2002 with community workshops, stakeholder events and consultation on options.
The East of England regional assembly—70 per cent. of its members are local authority members, the majority of whom are Conservative—has worked on a draft, and it has done more work on the London, Stansted, Cambridge and Peterborough area. The public consultation began in December and will end in the middle of next week. The next stage is that an independent panel will review all the issues and hold an examination in public.
Hon. Members asked detailed questions on issues ranging from the water supply to the impact on particular locations and on particular roads. Those matters, and others such as airport noise or the regeneration of particular towns, are exactly the sorts of things that the examination in public needs to address. All such issues need to be properly addressed and openly scrutinised and discussed by the examination in public. It is right that that should happen and that we should go through that process. It is proposed that, in early 2006, the panel would publish a report recommending amendments to the draft regional spatial strategy. There would then be a further opportunity for consultation on the revisions. There are considerable opportunities for discussion and debate across the region and at local level.
I should also make it clear that we shall not support housing growth at any cost. New housing must respect the environment and be more sustainable than in the past. That is why, as I said, 67 per cent. of new homes are now built on brownfield land, compared with just 56 per cent. in 1997. We need to continue with brownfield development.
In 2003, the average density of new homes was 33 per hectare, compared with 25 between 1996 and 2001. In the east of England, about 20,000 homes were built every year between 1996 and 2001, at an average density of 22 homes per hectare. If those homes had been built at a density of 30 homes per hectare, another 7,200 homes could have been built every year on the same land. We are committed to building homes more sustainably and are consulting, for example, on changes to the building regulations to deliver a 25 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency.
Of course, this is not just a matter of individual homes. Homes should be in communities that are more sustainable, and close to jobs and the services that
8 Mar 2005 : Column 390WH
people need, so that people can be less dependent on cars and so that we do not repeat the low-density, car-dependent suburban sprawl of previous generations.
Mr. Heald : Is the Minister saying that we should go back to the flats and tower blocks of the 1960s, which were such a disaster? I thought that that was the lesson of the past.
Yvette Cooper : Of course we need to avoid the mistakes of the 1960s and the 1970s, and of many previous decades and generations. We also need to ensure that developments use improved design. There are obvious design changes that can substantially improve community spirit in an area, as well as the residents' quality of life.
We have made a clear commitment that every English region will maintain or increase the area currently designated as green belt in local plans. The fundamental aim remains to keep land around urban areas permanently open and to prevent urban sprawl. In some exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate to consider whether the most sustainable option may be to revise green belt boundaries; that would depend on transport links and the location of jobs and services. However, those instances should be the exceptions. The east of England has been considering that.
Mr. Prisk : Is the metropolitan green belt in my constituency safe under the Labour Government—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper : The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on specific constituency issues and areas in this debate, because of the regional planning process that we are going through. I have made it very clear that our commitment to the green belt across the region remains important. We should be aware that the green belt has increased as a result of Government policies, in contrast to substantial green-belt reductions in many places under the last Conservative Government. We should not forget that.
Hon. Members asked specific questions about funding for services. Funding allocation for public services such as health and education must respond to housing growth. We are already announcing substantial new funding packages for growth areas. For example, there is funding to enable the NHS to increase local service capacity and to ensure that the Department for Education and Skills responds to planned housing growth in forecasting pupil numbers. That is in addition to substantial extra investment in those services—investment that Opposition Members would cut across the board, not only for the growth areas, but throughout the country.
The Opposition need to recognise the need for additional housing and for economic prosperity. It is a shame that they still refuse to understand the importance of economic prosperity and of the links between the housing market and the regional economy. That shows that their approach would be not simply to cut houses, but to cut economic growth.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 389WH
8 Mar 2005 : Column 391WH
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |