Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2004
KEITH HILL
MP AND LORD
ROOKER
Q200 Chairman: But the Government
has somehow given the impression—and I think the Chancellor
began this process when he announced the publication of the report
initially—that they have basically accepted pretty well
all the recommendations, are very positive about it and are pressing
ahead.
Lord Rooker: I have no doubt we
will see some effect of that when the Chancellor announces the
result of the Spending Review next week, but as I repeat, Barker
is on top of what we are already planning to do, which of course
we only announced a short time ago. Two years is a short time
in the scale of these things.
Q201 Chairman: Do you think it is
regrettable that she either was not given the freedom to look
at the environmental consequences of her recommendations
or chose not to?
Lord Rooker: Well, that is a matter
you will have to ask Kate Barker.
Q202 Chairman: But you set the brief.
Lord Rooker: No, but hang on,
the way you asked the question it is for Kate Barker to answer
that. We take account in our decisions of environmental effects,
whether it is on planning, house building or the growth areas,
as Ministers and as people responsible for the delivery of vehicles
we are setting up. So we have no problem about us being accountable
for environmental aspects of either new house building, refurbished
house building or the planning decisions. That is what we are
accountable for and that is what we are doing, so I am quite happy
about that.
Q203 Chairman: So the whole question
of the relationship between sustainable development, which I know
the Government takes very seriously, and the housing supply issue
will be looked at by Ministers?
Lord Rooker: Well, it is not going
to be looked at, it is done—and I genuinely mean this—on
a daily basis, either at meetings and visits that Keith and I
both do and appointments we make.
Q204 Chairman: Is this part of the
task force's remit?
Lord Rooker: No. People will come
back having mulled over the views about the Barker Review. As
I say, the Government will not give a pronouncement on this for
some considerable time, at least 12 months away. In the meantime,
there is a huge operation going on quite separate, underneath
the Barker numbers, if you like, (a) to get a step increase in
the change of housing production in this country, both replacement
and growth, and to manage the growth in a sustainable way, whether
it is in the growth areas of the South East or in the market with
North Pathfinders in the Midlands and the North. The same criteria
that is all set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan from last
year is what is being operated on a daily basis, I can assure
you of that.
Q205 Chairman: Yes, but as you yourself
have said, the whole Barker agenda is over and above the Sustainable
Communities Plan.
Lord Rooker: Well, that is correct,
because we will be looking for—
Q206 Chairman: What many people have
said to us is that they are concerned in relation to Barker, not
the Sustainable Communities Plan, which is separate and we may
come on to it in a minute. In relation to Barker, they are very
concerned that she only really mentioned the environment at all
in order to dismiss it as a factor. That would not matter if the
Government had not given the impression that it had accepted Barker
in whole.
Lord Rooker: Well, no. I ask you
to judge us by what we are doing and the decisions we are taking
now. We will implement the bits of Barker that we agree with after
consultation in the future and that will build in what we are
actually doing now the last year and the next two to three years
under the forthcoming spending round, and those who want to comment
on the fact that Barker might be missing some paragraphs on the
environment or aspects of the environment, or the economics of
the environment, I ask those people to judge what we are doing
now in creating a step change in housing production and rebuilding
and creating new sustainable communities. Judge us by what we
are doing now on that because that is the way we will implement
Barker on top of what we are doing.
Q207 Chairman: It sounds as though
you are distancing yourself slightly from Barker.
Lord Rooker: No, I am not. I am
just answering honestly your question and I am not bulling because
I cannot say what will happen about Barker. It is 12 months away
and we are going to have to move heaven and earth to get to the
starting point, if you like, base one on which Barker will be
built. That in itself is the most major operation that we are
engaged in at the moment to get those extra 200,000 dwellings
locked in over and above the 900,000 already planned. That in
itself is a major task and that is our central daily task, if
you like.
Q208 Mr Francois: Minister, the Sustainable
Communities Plan, as it were, is confirmed and in the public domain.
The merger of the regional housing boards and the regional planning
boards is confirmed and in the public domain and you are saying
now that the Government's response to Barker is likely to be—you
have used the words several times—approximately 12 months
away. Now, I am not asking you to tell us when the General Election
is, but most of the spread betting is that it is in May of next
year, in which case the announcements of the response to Barker
would fall probably just after a General Election. Is it possible
then that when you, as it were, respond to Barker there will be
further announcements about house building above and beyond the
Sustainable Communities Plan contingent upon whatever view the
Government takes of the Barker report, i.e. there will be even
more?
Lord Rooker: Yes.
Q209 Mr Francois: Right. And it is
possible—you have used the words "12 months" a
number of times—that if the Election were in May you would
announce even more houses, were you still to be in Government,
shortly after the General Election was out of the way, yes?
Lord Rooker: Well, you are presupposing
the date of the General Election. It could be next May, it could
be May 2006. We are not operating on an electoral cycle here,
by the way. The Communities Plan is a 2016-2021 plan. The house
building programmes that I am referring to are 2016-2021, the
kind of figures I am referring to, the 900,000 plus the 200,000
are by 2016. This is not a quick fix for next year.
Q210 Mr Francois: All right, without
pinning you down to when the General Election is, it is likely
there will be further announcements about house building in relation
to Barker in around about the early summer of next year? You did
say yes before.
Lord Rooker: I did say yes before,
but on the basis that every home in this country currently has
to last 1,200 years we have got to do something about improving
our housing production. We cannot carry on as we are. There is
not enough affordable housing, there are not houses in the right
place. We do not replace at anywhere near the rate of our continental
partners. It is 0.1% a year; it is 1% in France and Germany. So
every dwelling in this country on average at the current figures
of replacement and new build has to last 1,200 years. That is
not sustainable for any government or anybody charged with making
sure we have got a decent civilised society. So, yes is the answer
to your question, even with that little caveat.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
Q211 Joan Walley: I just really wanted
to follow up what you were saying just now and to ask you whether
you feel that the Barker report is somehow or another fudging
the whole issue because it is taking attention away from what
the task of Government is to deal with now. I just wonder whether
or not you are really suggesting to us that our inquiry should
be concentrating as much on the Sustainable Communities Plan as
it should be looking into the future in terms of Barker, because
presumably what you are saying is that this whole issue needs
to be looked at now in terms of the current delivery and perhaps
it is a bit too early to start looking at what the implications
of Barker could be further down the line?
Lord Rooker: I could not have
put it better myself. I genuinely mean that. I do not think there
has been enough parliamentary scrutiny about the Sustainable Communities
Plan. There is next to no interest where I come from, down the
corridor. I would have thought there would be more interest in
this House. I mean, we are engaged on a big operation that is
a national operation. It is not urban, it is not rural, it is
not south and it is not north, it is national, and it was all
set out 18 months ago and lots of decisions are flowing from that,
whether it is new forest, next to green belt new housing production.
There is next to no inquiry, there is next to no scrutiny about
it. So the answer to your question, Joan, is yes.
north, it is national, and it was all set out 18
Prime Minister Select Committee had conducted an inquiry into
the Sustainable Communities Plan?
Lord Rooker: Yes. Well, somewhat
inadequately.
Q213 Chairman: Well, you may wish
to convey that sentiment to them.
Lord Rooker: We did at the time,
Chairman.
Chairman: That is not a problem for us.
Q214 Sue Doughty: I would like to
look a little bit at the allocation of land for development because
obviously it is a bit of a fraught area and I know both Ministers
will be fully familiar with the problems we have in the South
East with affordability of housing and limited green belt area,
and the tensions that there are between trying to get people into
houses and retain the countryside. There is a recommendation which
is causing a lot of concern about the requirement to allocate
between 20 to 40% of land for development as a buffer which would
be released automatically to development if certain trigger levels
were reached, including house price rises. Is this one of the
recommendations you are thinking of taking forward?
Lord Rooker: This is back to Barker?
Q215 Sue Doughty: Yes.
Lord Rooker: Well, there is a
big debate going on, of course, about the connection she made
between housing production and prices, but all I can do, I am
sorry about this, is to repeat the current situation that we are
in at the moment. 90% of England is green field; 90% is green
field. That is the reality at the present time. Green belt is
14%, national parks are 8%, areas of outstanding natural beauty
are 16%. Even if we achieve the growth, the 200,000 on top of
the 900,000, the urban will go from 10% to 11% and the green fields
will go down from 90% to 89%. So one could argue this is not an
issue about concreting over the countryside. You did not use those
words, I know, but people do and I am not putting words in your
mouth. In other words, the amount of land-take is incredibly small.
It varies area to area. Our policy anyway is brown field first,
higher densities—
Q216 Chairman: I beg your pardon.
I do not wish to be rude, but perhaps the Planning Minister would
like to answer Ms Doughty's question about this over-provision
which Barker recommends, the 40% buffer. Is it one of the recommendations
that you will be taking forward and have you considered the implications
of the almost wholesale marketisation of the current planning
system which this represents?
Keith Hill: I am not entirely
sure what you mean by that phrase "wholesale marketisation
of the planning system", but on the issue of allocations
policy that is one of the proposals in Barker that we are looking
at and commissioning work on. It is not a proposal that we have
accepted, but it is one of the package of proposals that we want
to examine. But no decision has certainly been taken on that so
far.
Q217 Chairman: Let me explain what
I mean by "marketisation". That particular recommendation,
if implemented, would effectively place decisions for future development
in the hands of the property market rather than in the hands of
planning authorities. Is that a principle that you are happy to
concede?
Keith Hill: I think it is one
of the issues that we will want to examine as we take forward
our consideration of this proposal, but we have not made any decision
on that matter and I certainly would not want to pre-empt any
decision, or indeed any judgment on that matter at this point
either.
Q218 Sue Doughty: Well, I still remain
concerned about this because having listened to the answers on
that, we still have particular concerns. In some parts of the
country where the heat is highest there is an implication very
heavily about building on the green belt as proportions of green
belt are not quite as high as the rest of the countryside. So
I am concerned about how much work is going to be done on this
whole issue about buffer land and I fully take on board what Lord
Rooker is saying about the need for housing. That is not an issue.
But there are other aspects as well about how you deal with the
housing market, how you damp down prices, as well as taking in
this buffer land, using up this buffer land. What I want to know
is how much study is going to go into not only whether we just
do a land grab for marketisation and just say, "Yes, here's
a trigger. Let's get hold of this next bit of land here, which
may be green belt, may be not," but what else we could do
to take the heat out of the housing market, what other strategies
are there, including looking at whole areas which are already
over-heated, such as we have in some spots in the south-east of
England?
Keith Hill: Well, if I could perhaps
comment on that before Lord Rooker makes a response. I think you
should not set hares running and possibly scaremonger on this
issue of green belt. Let us be entirely clear that the Government's
record on green belt is clear and impressive. We have increased
the green belt by something in the order of 19,000 hectares since
1997 and there are 12,000 hectares in the pipeline to come from
local authorities as they develop their local plans. We have made
it absolutely clear that where there should be any green belt
take, we would expect on a regional basis the replacement of that
green belt take. We have also been absolutely clear about our
principle of brown field first and green field where necessary—and
I mean green field and not green belt. Let me remind the Committee
that currently new build in London and the South East is proceeding
at the rate of 66% on brown field, which exceeds the Government's
target of 60% new build in brown field. So we are absolutely moving
in the right direction. If I might speak for the Thames Gateway,
for which I have specific responsibility and which is, of course,
the largest of the growth area projects, there we expect up to
80% of the new build to occur on brown field. So I think we can
reasonably say that we have a major programme moving ahead and
actually it conforms entirely to this Government's commitment
to brown field first and very little take on the green belt. That
is the reality now and that is the reality for the foreseeable
future. Lord Rooker, I do not know if you want to add anything?
Lord Rooker: No, I agree. That
will not change. That will not change post-Barker. That is a policy
objective, one we are operating and one we intend to see operated
as well. We are also building at higher densities, so we are taking
less land to get more dwellings.
Keith Hill: If I might throw a
further statistic into the debate, if you take what you might
describe as almost the middle range of the Barker proposals, which
is for a further 220,000 to 350,000, and look at 300,000 new homes
over the next ten years in London and the South East, you are
actually looking at building on 0.75% of total land area of the
South East and at building on 1.92%,[3]
I think the statistic is, of developable land. So, you know, I
think we need to keep these things in some perspective, and that
of course is at a much higher level of build than we are currently
committed to.
Q219 Mr Francois: Minister, you have
said in response to an earlier question that you were still considering
whether or not to accept Barker's proposal for what we describe
as "wholesale marketisation of the planning system".
I think you said that no decision had been taken on that yet.
You will be very aware, as we all are as Members of Parliament,
that planning can often be extremely controversial and it is one
of those things particularly that people look to their local councillors
sometimes to defend them from controversial planning applications
within the bounds of planning law and the Government has gone
to a great deal of time and trouble to update planning law with
the new Act. If you were to accept wholesale marketisation as
proposed by Barker, what then is the point in having local elections?
Keith Hill: Personally, I am simply
not prepared to go down the path of this speculation about so-called
"marketisation". It is not an expression that I personally
recognise. We have certainly not committed ourselves to it but
we have, as I have indicated, undertaken to work on the proposal
for the so-called over-allocations policy. That is the precise
position. But let me also remind you as a former and, if I might
say so, distinguished member of the Standing Committee on the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that absolutely central
to the Bill is our commitment to engage with local communities.
Indeed, as you will well recall, the very first step in the evolution
of the local development framework is the requirement for local
authorities to come forward with a statement of community involvement
which explains exactly how they propose to involve the local community
at every stage and every aspect of the development of the plan
at local level. What is more, of course, we are placing in general
terms an emphasis on front-loading of plan making and of pre-application
negotiation. All of these things are designed to ensure the greatest
possible involvement of local communities and the greatest transparency
in the planning process. All of these ought to give local people
reassurances about the extent to which the process will be an
open and proper process.
3 Note by the witness: This calculation assumes
that Government allows an additional 120,000 houses per annum
to be built over and above existing plans, entirely in London
and the South East, for ten years. It assumes that 60% of homes
will be built on brownfield, at 30 dwellings per hectare. It includes
an allowance for infrastructure. "South East" is GO-SE
area plus Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. Back
|
