Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400
- 419)
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MS SHEILA
MCCABE
Q400 Chairman: You are on the task
force?
Ms McCabe: No. The task force
is only for ODPM and HMT.
Mrs Clark: So you are just being consulted
again. Oh dear!
Q401 Chairman: It seems to me that
you are being hung out to dry. This whole area is very disappointing.
I would not want to be in your shoes, particularly since you are
known to have strong convictions about sustainability. The extent
to which you have been marginalised seems extraordinary to me.
Mr Morley: I do not accept that
we are being marginalised. Departments have different committees
and different groups and that also includes ourselves, we have
working groups on water which other government departments are
not on. That does not mean that they are not involved, nor does
it make them any less effective. I would not go as far as what
you have done in your last statement, Chairman. What is important
are outcomes. We are always going to have an argument about outcomes
and I repeat that we are prepared to push this to the limit in
relation to change, in relation to sustainability. I do not accept
those comments.
Q402 Chairman: It seems to me you
have a huge amount of work to do, not least in clawing your way
back into this agenda which seems to have been seized by the Treasury
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Morley: I do not accept we
have been excluded, Chairman.
Q403 Chairman: You are not terribly
included in.
Mr Morley: We are included in
at the very highest level and the very highest level in this delivery
is the MISC22 Cabinet Committee. I attend that, as does Margaret
Beckett. It is quite wrong for you to suggest that in some way
we are isolated in this development because that is not the case.
We have had a great deal of influence in the developments at this
stage. If you are saying the measurement of this is that every
single little committee within Government must have Defra representation,
I think that is going a bit far.
Q404 Chairman: You were not asked
about the terms of reference of the Barker Review and you are
not included in the task force that is taking the recommendations
forward. I do not know how much more excluded it is possible to
be.
Ms McCabe: There are only two
departments on the task force. Defra is not being singled out
here.
Q405 Chairman: What certainty do
you have that the work you are doing, that you have told us you
need to do, is going to be completed to your satisfaction before
the Office the Deputy Prime Minister or the Treasury makes a further
substantive announcement about the Barker Review?
Mr Morley: There will be no substantive
announcement about the Barker Review without our investment and
consultation with Defra.
Q406 Chairman: You do not think they
are going to go ahead without you?
Mr Morley: Absolutely not, no.
Q407 Chairman: They seem to have
done when they announced the Barker Review in the first place.
Mr Morley: We were consulted in
the setting up of the Barker Review and we have been involved
in relation to a detailed response from Defra and in terms of
our views on Barker.
Q408 Chairman: So you can tell us
categorically that there will be no further announcement about
Barker and progress towards implementation unless you are satisfied
about all the environmental issues that we have talked about today?
Mr Morley: There will be no announcement
without our involvement and our consultation. I am quite sure
that your Committee may have something to say about that itself,
Chairman.
Chairman: We are always keen to support
your Department, Minister!
Q409 Mrs Clark: Can I look at the
Sustainable Buildings Task Group and test your involvement in
that. It has put forward proposals for amending the Buildings
Regulations to improve energy and resource efficiency. Are you
actually involved in the work to take this forward? Are you a
member of the task force or again a consultee?
Mr Morley: We are a member of
the task force and we are putting forward our ideas in relation
to water and energy savings. We believe that there is potential
for 30% savings on energy and 30% savings on water with minimal
cost in relation to building standards. There are building codes
which are being developed by the task force and we are part of
that group as well.
Q410 Mrs Clark: We have been told
that the main aim is to include any proposals in Building Regulations
by the year 2010. That seems to me to be rather a long way away.
Is this the timetable that the Government is working to? Is it
going to be achieved?
Ms McCabe: That is a responsibility
primarily of ODPM. I am not an expert on Building Regulations,
but certainly Building Regulations are being reviewed all the
time. Energy is being reviewed by 2005 and water as well. I am
not sure where the 2010 figure comes from.
Q411 Mrs Clark: Is it going to slip?
Mr Morley: 2010 is long enough
as it is. I would rather see changes in regulations come in before
then.
Q412 Mrs Clark: What has been your
involvement with the consultation and development on PPS1?
Mr Morley: We have been consulted
from the beginning in relation to PPS1. Again, there are a lot
of implications for us, particularly in relation to the provision
of water and the way that planning is put in place. We also have
an interest in such things as the special planning which is being
brought forward there and PPS1 is also a potential opportunity
to review what can be difficulties in putting in place infrastructure
for waste management. There have been some considerable delays
in relation to infrastructure, even fairly innocuous development
such as recycling centres and composting centres.
Q413 Mrs Clark: It has been our impression
that despite stating that PPS1 puts sustainability "at the
heart of development" planners are still going to have limited
powers when it comes to requiring sustainability principles to
be properly incorporated into housing. Do you agree with that?
Mr Morley: There is always an
argument about how far you can go in relation to sustainability
and the powers that you have. We are looking to improve and increase
those powers and PPS1 is an opportunity to do that.
Q414 Chairman: Is it not a pity that
developers and planners will only have to have regard to PPS1,
they do not have to abide by it?
Mr Morley: I am not a lawyer.
I suspect "regard to" is probably a phrase which they
cannot altogether ignore. I think in these issues the tighter
the regulations and definitions the better.
Q415 Mrs Clark: I certainly agree
with that because in my experience planning departments often
go completely out of control and off on their own. Will it be
possible in your view, once PPS1 comes into force, for local authorities
to refuse planning permission for developments that do not actually
comply with sustainable development principles?
Mr Morley: There will be stronger
guidance issued to local authorities about the whole issue of
sustainable development which has not featured in planning criteria
very much so far.
Q416 Mrs Clark: Do they not often
ignore guidance?
Mr Morley: You have got this conflict
in that the planning process in this country is devolved to local
authorities. The guidance is there for the professional officers
who guide the planning committees. The planning committees themselves
in the end take the final decisions.
Q417 Mrs Clark: The elected councillors?
Mr Morley: That is right. They
themselves are subject to the appeals process and also the various
legal processes of judicial review.
Q418 Mr Challen: As a Member representing
an urban fringe seat on the urban fringe of Britain's most successful
and growing city I hasten to add, that puts enormous pressure
on housing and my constituency is almost overwhelmed by new housing.
One of the more welcome products of ODPM was PPG3, which put the
emphasis on developing Brownfield before Greenfield sites. Barker
seems to adopt as one of her fundamental principles the principle
that in future housing supply should be led by market demand,
land valuations and so on. Are you concerned by the possibility
that that approach could damage or reverse the very beneficial
effects of PPG3?
Mr Morley: I think the Brownfield
development is the right priority and I am very glad to say that
the Government's target has been exceeded, it was 60% and it is
currently 64% and ahead of schedule on this. It is true that there
was some controversy about some of the perceived conclusions of
the Barker report. The implementation of it is a matter for Government
and that will involve getting the balance right between Brownfield
developments and the use of green fields. If I recall, I think
it was Barker who talked about green buffers to development as
well and I think that is an opportunity for building in the green
spaces I was mentioning before, you can get a range of objectives
from that.
Q419 Chairman: The buffers were a
40% over-provision that she recommends, where development gets
triggered by market forces irrespective of the input of local
planners. That is a very different type of buffer from the green
buffer.
Mr Morley: You cannot allow all
planning to be driven by market forces. I think you need the spacial
approach which PPS1 argues for.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
| 
