Examination of Witnesses (Questions 67
- 76)
WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE 2004
MR NEIL
SINDEN AND
MR HENRY
OLIVER
Q67 Chairman: Good afternoon, you
have been very patient but welcome to the Committee. Thank you
for coming along and also for your written memorandum. Along with
the other witnesses we have heard this afternoon, you have been
highly critical of the Barker Review. You have even produced your
own research A Basis on Which to Build? where you set out
to refute the conclusion that there is a need to build any of
these houses anyway. Where do you think Barker, and by extension
the ODPM, has gone wrong and why have they gone so wrong?
Mr Sinden: If I can kick off on
that. The report and the critique to which you refer was the report
we commissioned between the publication of the interim and final
report by the Barker Review team. There were some important assumptions
that needed to be unpacked and explored within the interim report
and the terms of reference given in order to inform the further
analysis that we hope to see carried on by the Barker team prior
to the publication of the final report. Those assumptions related
essentially not just to the gap and the flaw that has already
been identified this afternoon, which is the gap in terms of the
understanding in the Barker Review of the environmental and planning
frameworks within which the housing supply issues had been addressed,
but also a weakness in the supply-side focus of the review. We
felt that there was a need to address demand-side considerations
to do with the housing market. To be fair, the Treasury had also
thought this was necessary when they commissioned David Miles
to look at an element of the mortgage market, which was the lack
of attractiveness apparently within the UK market of long-term
fixed rate mortgages compared with other European countries. However,
we felt that the exclusive focus of Barker on supply-side considerations
was likely to distort the recommendations that she would be arriving
at and our fears were proven correct in that sense. We feel, in
common with earlier witnesses, that the inquiry's terms of reference
and its limited remit was bound to come up with distorted, one-sided
recommendations on the issue of housing supply and we in vain,
as it turned out, sought to draw attention to that risk prior
to the publication of the final report. It is encouraging to us,
however, that increasingly it seems that commentators on the house
market and those directly involved in housing are addressing the
very serious flaws and questions that we raised in that connection.
Just to repeat the two or three main arguments that we sought
to deploy at that stage. One was the issue of whether or not we
had an overall shortage of housing in the UK, it was clear from
the Census data that was published in Kate Barker's interim report
that the answer to that question was not quite as straightforward
as she and the Treasury and ODPM had been assuming. In fact, we
have seen an increase, according to the Census data, in the excess
of dwellings over households between 1991 and 2001 from 2.4% to
3.7% across the whole country and that is an increase in over-provision
that has been experienced across the country in every region in
England. The balances remain more or less the same in London but
in other parts of the country there has been a growth in the number
of dwellings over households. Any short-term impact in terms of
house price inflation and house price volatility, we argued, are
as much, if not more, to do with demand side factors such as people's
willingness to pay for housing and their treatment of housing
as a good investment than issues to do with shortages in supply.
In connection with that argument we drew attention to the fact
that private sector house building rates have remained more or
less constant over the past few decades at around 120,000 dwellings
per annum to 130,000 dwellings per annum, and in fact over the
past two to three years private house build rates have been creeping
up. We felt that on those grounds alone there was a need to question
the assumptions.
Q68 Chairman: Did I notice earlier
this month that the Halifax produced a report saying there was
a short-fall of half a million houses and would not that analysis
be supported by the continuing rise in house prices? There seems
to be evidence to the contrary of what you are saying.
Mr Sinden: This is the problemthat
conflicting messages are being put out by different commentators
on the market. For example, I would also draw attention to the
comments made by the Governor of the Bank of England earlier this
week which were suggesting that there are very important demand
side factors such as levels of interest rates that are actually
going to affect demand and therefore in turn affect house prices.
Therefore the paradox that we drew attention to in the report
A Basis on Which to Build? was this idea that if indeed
affordability levels do improve over the coming years with a reduced
rate of house price inflation or indeed a reduction in house prices,
there is every likelihood that, in terms of the analysis that
Barker applies to the housing market, we may need to place restrictions
on further supply in order to bring affordability levels up to
the desired level that Kate Barker and the Treasury team seem
to propose, which was the affordability levels of the late 1980s.
There was a perversity in the methodology and approach that was
being applied by the Barker Review team that we fear may well
be shown to be a serious flaw if in the analysis changes in house
price patterns do come to bear over the coming months.
Mr Oliver: There is also one other
point there which is that sometimes there is a confusion between
need and demand. I think it is quite easy to look at demand and
say we are not meeting it because demand in housing is very elastic,
both in terms of size and indeed in how many houses people want
at one end of the spectrum. Some of the criticisms of the planning
system have focused on not providing the number of houses which
matches the number of households forming, and this is a process
we went through with the Government five or six years ago where
the Government came to an understanding (which was very much an
understanding we shared) that household formation, never mind
household projections, is not necessarily a proxy for housing
need and that is where the role of the planning system comes in.
There is a distinction there which is sometimes blurred unhelpfully.
Q69 Mr Savidge: In your memorandum
you state that with the Sustainable Communities Plan the Government
risks abandoning its commitment to urban renewal. What did you
mean by that?
Mr Oliver: I think we felt that
the Communities Plan focuses overwhelmingly, as has been pointed
out already by other witnesses, on expansion in four particular
growth areas in the wider South East of England. At the time that
the plan came out we set a series of five "sustainability"
tests of the plan and we said that we would be watching to see
what happens. One year on, in February this year, we had another
look at those. Broadly they were: was the plan and were the numbers
of houses and other things in the plan subject to independent
testing; would it make better use of land than in previous years;
would it raise brown field targets and put urban renaissance first;
would it happen within a coherent framework of regional policy;
and would it ensure an adequate degree of public engagement in
the decisions being made at all levels? Our analysis one year
on has been that it has failed on all five of those so far. One
of the biggest problems is that the Government has been highlighting
what it sees as a need for enormous expansion, largely on green
field sites. For example, the plans for the Milton Keynes/South
Midlands growth area, including delineating site areas for new
special delivery vehicles which are not accountable to local populations
(the Urban Development Corporation in West Northamptonshire for
example) are forging ahead before the public examination into
the proposals had finished never mind reported. One of our anxieties
is that there is a lot of urban potential and potential for better
use of land through higher densities and so on which is simply
not being looked at because the targets are being driven ahead
regardless of the wider public process. What that fundamentally
comes down to is that the Government, despite having committed
itself in PPG3 which we strongly support, to a brown field first/urban
first approach with green field coming last, is putting green
field onto the front of some of its plans in the growth areas.
Mr Savidge: Taking that point about green
field being put on the front-end and talking about targets, you
suggest that targets for new housing in the Thames Gateway could
be more than doubled without requiring any encroachment on green
field land. How would you respond to the criticism that you are
living up to your title rather too literally as the Campaign to
Protect Rural England in that you are trying to protect the green
belt at any cost? Is that really taking sufficient account of
whether that is a sensible approach or what the quality of life
would be like in the urban areas?
Q70 Chairman: Can I add to that.
How is it compatible with your analysis that we do not need to
build houses anyway?
Mr Oliver: That is a very fair
point. There are a number of aspects to this. If we can take the
aspect of where the Thames Gateway fits into the wider strategy
of the Communities Plan, and indeed nationally, first. If there
is a need for large-scale house building and expansion in the
wider South East, we see the main opportunity for that to happen,
whilst delivering environmental and social gains at the same time,
is within certain parts of the Thames Gateway. So if there is
to be a growth area, essentially we are interested in maximising
the urban capacity to absorb that growth. We think the best place
for that is closest to London and we make a distinction between
the eastern fringes of the Thames Gateway and those which are
within Greater London and on the edge of it. We believe that that
area could absorb a considerable amount of development pressure
which would otherwise be threatening countryside in less sustainable
locations elsewhere without the benefits in terms of remediating
derelict land and underused land. We have never been an organisation
which says that there should be no green field development. We
have been actively involved in the design of fairly major green
field extensions, for example on the edge of Ashford in Kent which
is another of the growth areas in the past, and we continue to
be involved in that. Therefore we do not take an absolutist line.
What we have with the Thames Gateway is simply if you look at
the analyses that have been done of the urban capacity they are
based on outdated surveys when people were not used to doing this
and when they did not have to do it pre-PPG3. They are based on
outdated assumptions about density and use of land partly in relation
to design, partly in relation to what the market will bear and
partly in relation to national planning policy. Therefore, an
awful lot more potential has been revealed than was hitherto understood
to exist and our own analysis from our people who are working
directly on this on the ground in the Thames Gateway is that the
capacity which had been identified tentatively could be doubled
within the brown field area. There may be in specific cases issues
for example to do with the biodiversity value of brown field sites,
we accept that, but in principle we are taking the government
at its word and saying, "Okay, urban renaissance is what
you want; here's the potential." To come to your question,
Chairman, about how that fits in with our analysis of Barker's
conclusions about numbers, it is a perfectly fair criticism. As
we have said, we do not accept there is necessarily a need for
a huge increase in house building but the housing that is going
to be built in the wider South East in the next two or three decades
we believe would be best concentrated on previously developed
urban land largely within the Thames Gateway. Do not forget that
the M11 corridor also includes quite large tracts of derelict
land which are currently not being looked at very closely because
the emphasis is very much on green field development in the London/Stansted/Peterborough
corridor.
Q71 Chairman: Can I ask you very
briefly for your thoughts on what we were hearing earlier about
the marketisation of the planning system. Do you share the concerns
that have been expressed?
Mr Sinden: I think we do in relation
to the Treasury's approach to planning. The point that we would
add to the analysis that you have heard so far, which relates
also to the point that was made about the increasing focus of
the ODPM on delivery of sustainable communities, concerns to the
wider role of the planning system as a tool of environmental policy,
which we believe has been a driving force of developments in planning
policy since the 1990 Environment White Paper. In fact, the last
big Planning Act which shortly followed that and the ensuing policy
changes were strongly influenced by the environmental agenda set
out in the Environment White Paper and that was an agenda that
we strongly welcomed. We believe it recognised the role of planning
as an environmental policy tool. What we are seeing now with the
ODPM is, if you like, a loss of that perspective on the wider
role of the planning system. This may be something to do with
the way in which departmental structures have changed in the intervening
period and the crucial fact, from our point of view, that the
environmental policy responsibilities are now separated off from
the ODPM. I think it is fair to say that whilst we have already
talked this afternoon about the Defra-commissed report on the
environmental implications of Barker, officials in that Department
would recognise that they have not had a significant impact on
the housing debate so far. We wait to see what that Department
is going to do with that study in terms of influencing the Government's
broader response to that agenda. That will be the additional point
I would add. We are also deeply concerned, as is Friends of the
Earth, about the proposals in Barker which essentially are a negation
of the fundamental principles of the planning system. We believe
these proposals could, if we are not careful, bring the system
down and create all sorts of confusion as well as public opposition
on the ground to necessary development. The CPRE has always recognised
that the planning system is there to ensure that we have necessary
development in the right place at the right time. Our fear is
that if we move away from the established principles of the system
this will also frustrate the achievement of the development side
of the sustainable development agenda, if you like.
Q72 Mr Chaytor: Just two quick points.
In respect of the figures from the Census you quoted at the very
beginning about the increase in surplus stock over a ten-year
period, surely this is irrelevant because what matters is the
distribution of that increase? I can go 15 minutes from my constituency
and buy a terraced house for £20,000. In the centre of London
it would be 25 or 40 times that price so surely the statistics
have to be looked at on a regional basis not a national basis?
Are there any figures that you have about levels of surplus stock
on a regional basis?
Mr Sinden: You are absolutely
right, not only regional, but sub-regional and very local markets
need to be looked at, but the point we were drawing attention
to very simply was that the Census data, including at a regional
leveland both the Barker Report and our analysis reproduced
the regional datashows an increase in the excess in every
region.
Q73 Mr Chaytor: Even in the South
East?
Mr Sinden: Even in the South East.
Q74 Mr Chaytor: The Barker Report's
figures contain an increase in the excess?
Mr Sinden: Yes, the interim report
does. The only region which did not experience or show an increase
in the excess over that period was London, where the excess remained
more or less at the same level.
Q75 Mr Chaytor: Is the CPRE equally
as timid as the WWF in accepting that a new generation of tower
blocks must be the answer to this problem? Are you prepared to
come out in favour of tower blocks?
Mr Sinden: We come out in favour
of higher density development and we echo the views of the WWF
about there being a strong degree of mythology surrounding the
debate about density. Higher-density development does not necessarily
mean high-density development in the sense of tower blocks and
excessively high density. What it does mean, however, is building
at significantly higher densities to the densities we are building
at the moment. The latest data from the ODPM shows that we are
achieving an increase in the average density of new residential
development. The data published at the beginning of last month,
in May, shows that on average we were achieving 30 dwellings per
hectare densities in the last year. That is an increase on the
previous year from 27 dwellings per hectare. Given the fact that
the Government has set a target range of between 30 and 50 dwellings
per hectare in PPG3 we are still at the bottom end of that range
and we would argue very strongly that even 50 dwellings per hectare
really could not be described as "high density". It
is only at that level of density that we begin to get the sustainability
gains not just in terms of effective and efficient use of land
but also in terms of promoting the viability of businesses and
services. For example, there are studies which show that bus services
are only viable when they are serving residential areas of 40
dwellings per hectare plus. And let's not forget that if you look
around most of inner London most of the residential development
that is going on in inner London and it is not high rise these
days, at densities of 80 dwellings per hectare and it is high
quality and it is attractive. We certainly do not think that we
need to go back to the tower block experience. There may well
be instances where that would be an appropriate response to the
urban design context within which you are considering the redevelopment
of a particular site, but we are not advocating that.
Mr Oliver: It is often quite inefficient
use of land. If you really want to get relatively high density
in a functional environment it is quite often better to build
low or medium rise than high rise simply because of the space
you have to have between buildings in high rise.
Q76 Chairman: Do you have a view
on the fact that people's back gardens in my constituency are
being turned into development plots? I take it from what you have
been saying that you think it is quite a good idea?
Mr Sinden: No, we do not. We do
have a view and it has been reported in some instances. We recognise
that the official definition of brown field land or "previously
used land and buildings", which is the technical term, does
embrace the curtilege of a dwelling house which would include
a garden but we have pointed out, and indeed the best local authorities
recognise this, that there are important design quality and design
standards to do with densities in new development which need to
be respected also. Those are to do with the character of a residential
area, which means invariably in most instances where you have
relatively low density housing with large gardens that you want
to seek to preserve that character and that identity. We believe
that it is a misinterpretation and a misapplication of government
policy which has led to cases such as that to which you refer
which are unfortunate and unnecessary.
Chairman: I am beginning to think we
are going to need a campaign to protect suburban England as well
as rural England! Anyway, thank you very much indeed for your
time, it was a very helpful session, and also for your written
evidence.
|