Examination of Witnesses (Questions 77
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2004
COUNCILLOR DAVID
SPARKS OBE, MR
DAVID WOODS,
MR MARTIN
BACON AND
MR LEE
SEARLES
Q77 Chairman: Good afternoon. I hope
you do not mind starting a little early but it would be helpful
to us to get cracking on this. Thank you also for the memorandum
which you submitted. It is quite clear from the memorandum that
you are not entirely happy with some of the conclusions of the
Barker review. Do you accept the main conclusion that to decrease
house price inflation we need to increase supply?
Mr Searles: There is obviously
a relationship between house price and supply. However, there
needs to be more debate on what the Barker review has hinted at
before we leap into policy solutions which we might regret. I
think we feel that there are issues around utilising the existing
supply which would be a factor in that argument. There is an issue
about the effects of recent trends resulting from the relatively
recent change in PPG3 which led to an emphasis on brownfield land
and the effect that might have had on dampening permissions for
new housing. Another relatively recent effect is the buy-to-let
phenomenon and investment in property and the whole atmosphere
that is created around the view that property is an investment.
I think whilst we are not saying that they are definitive reasons
in themselves, there are enough other factors that play a part
in determining and influencing the price/supply equation.
Q78 Chairman: Are you saying that
if you increase supply you do have an impact on prices but that
the Barker solution is not the one that you would like to see;
there are other ways of doing this.
Mr Searles: Yes. Obviously there
is a need to increase supply and there is a relationship between
price and supply but it is by no means the only part of the story
and it needs to be a much more sophisticated response than that
recommended by Barker.
Q79 Chairman: Many of Barker's recommendations
seem to jeopardise the role of local planning authorities in controlling
and ordering development. How do you respond to those recommendations?
Mr Sparks: As far as that is concerned,
this is a major area that we are dissatisfied with in relation
to the report which is entirely consistent with our overall position.
Essentially what we are concerned about is that we, as local authorities,
have had to review how we operate fundamentally over the past
ten years or so. We do not wish to repeat the mistakes of the
past. We know that 30 years ago, when there was a lot more coordination,
a lot more control, a lot more resources, we still managed to
create some absolute nightmares and disasters in terms of housing
development that we do not wish to repeat. One of our biggest
concerns about the current debate as it is currently portrayed
is that you could just look at the quantitative aspects of the
problem and end up repeating the mistakes of the past with insufficient
investment in infrastructure. One final point on that, what we
did not have thirty years ago was the concern about sustainability
to the extent we now have and we are genuinely bothered about
the need for any development to be sustainable, especially in
relation to housing.
| 
