Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 245)
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2004
KEITH HILL
MP AND LORD
ROOKER
Q240 Mr Francois: Minister, you will
be delighted to hear that the Committee has actually looked at
precisely that example.
Keith Hill: I am delighted.
Q241 Mr Francois: I am delighted
at how pleased you are. Can you tell us if the rest of the houses
in the Gateway will be built to the same standard?
Keith Hill: I do not think we
can give that specific undertaking, and let me say as well that
it is not our intention to apply or impose a separate standard
for new build in the Gateway. The truth of the matter is that
the view of the building industry is that they would much sooner
operate on the basis of, let us quote the phrase, "a level
playing field" so that you have the same standards across
the generality of the industry for all the reasons of economies
of scale, and you can understand why that should be the case.
I think that is the right principle anyway. Why should we impose
a higher standard in Thurrock than we would want to see applied
in Rayleigh, or for that matter in Aberdeen, or for that matter
in Aberystwyth.
Q242 Mr Francois: I take your point,
Minister, but you did imply in your earlier remark that you were
very pleased with what was going on in the developments at Greenwich
and then when we said, "Oh, that is a good thing. Can you
guarantee that will happen everywhere else," you then wrote
back
Keith Hill: Oh, you do get your
digs in, do you not?
Q243 Mr Francois: Forgive me, Minister,
but that is what you did. PPS1. Is it your intention under PPS1
that planners will be allowed to specify the materials, quality
of design, etc., in order to argue for more sustainable homes?
Will you provide that power under the aegis of PPS1 to local planners?
Keith Hill: Well, there are two
things. Again, I refer to your distinguished role on the Standing
Committee at the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and you
will recall that of course we have introduced a sustainability
clause into the Bill. So sustainability now lies at the heart
of the planning process. In addition to that, we have laid a further
requirement for a much more explicit statement of the components
of a plan application as part and parcel of the outline planning
permission procedure. Briefly, we would certainly expect those
sorts of material considerations to be taken into account.
Chairman: That certainly is a fascinating
dialogue, but there is one other important issue which I hope
we will have time to cover.
Q244 Sue Doughty: What we need to
move forward to now is looking at housing, energy and climate
change because we have got a huge opportunity to either fail to
achieve something or to make a real difference in the quality
of housing and reduce our contribution to CO2 emissions.
As we all know, there are going to be 200,000 new homes being
built a year as these proposals are being taken up. We have got
a significant environmental impact, not only in terms of land
use, resource use and water use but climate change, but in fact
the driver for addressing these issues has not been your Department
but DEFRA and it came out rather suddenly after Barker had come
out and where it was clear that there was not so much in sustainability
as we would like to see. Is sustainability really at the heart
of the housing programme or did you actually just sneak it in
afterwards?
Lord Rooker: No, honestly. That
is a very pejorative question. I just invite you to readit
is free, it is in the Vote Officethe Communities Plan published
5 February last year, where we set out the road map of how we
are operating. So it is not an afterthought. I genuinely ask you
to believe it is not an afterthought. We made that quite clear.
We published statements, I think in the summer of 2002, after
ODPM was formed about the way we would operate, that if it was
not sustainable we were not having it because we have got enough
dwellings in this country that have not lasted. If it is not sustainable,
it will not work, it costs more, peoples' lives are ruined by
it, and therefore we genuinely have to look at communities and
not a house building programme to make the whole thing work, whether
it is the social infrastructure, the road infrastructure, rail,
the hospitals and everything else, it has got to be sustainable,
and to look then at the quality of the products used in those
dwellings. If we can recycle, fine; if we cannot, we shall then
use low energy and low water supplies, as Keith said, were possible.
Chairman: As you know, a division has
been called. Joan Walley wants to slip in a quick question.
Q245 Joan Walley: I just want to
follow that up and ask that even if you cannot answer it now could
you write to the Committee in respect of the new regulations that
are coming out in terms of ODPM, in terms of energy efficiency
standards as well and the level at which we will be getting the
energy efficiency standards in.
Lord Rooker: Yes, sure.
Chairman: Indeed, there may be other
issues, because I am afraid we have not covered all the ground
we wanted to (no pun intended), which we might invite you to give
written evidence on. But thank you both very much indeed. It has
been an interesting session.
The Committee suspended from 4.22 pm to 4.32
pm for a division in the House.
|