Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 476)
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY 2004
MS KATE
BARKER
Q460 Mr Challen: We have already
read in your report that building companies do not invest in skills,
they do not invest in health and safety, they do not invest in
customer satisfaction. They certainly do not invest in the environment,
in making their houses spectacularly better, which we know is
possible from the experience of other countries. Who is going
to pay for that investment if we do not have a mechanism which
is directly levied on house builders? They have demonstrated that
they are not willing to do it themselves. Surely they should be
forced to do it?
Ms Barker: Let us split this up.
In terms of skills, again I am hoping that house builders will
come back and demonstrate that they are willing to do it themselves.
It should also be clear that if they do not demonstrate that they
are willing to do it themselves issues such as the construction
industry training levy should be looked at. I do not disagree
with you about that.
Q461 Mr Challen: What sort of timescale
would you look at? How long should they be on probation?
Ms Barker: The review gives different
probation periods for different things. In terms of the context
of the whole process of the review, we know that during next year
we are expecting to see government come back in terms of these
proposals. The builders themselves also, I think, should be coming
back with proposals on how they are going to deal with construction
in that time period. There was another question there which I
have forgotten.
Q462 Mr Challen: I think it was about
self-regulation.
Ms Barker: You asked a question
about why they do not meet the energy requirements. I do not talk
about this in the review but I will extend my remit and give you
my views. I think it is not fair to say that none of them makes
any effort on energy and water supply. Different builders make
different plans on energy and water supply. There is some evidence,
however, to suggest that the ongoing benefits that customers get
when they buy a house which is more energy and water efficient
are not very easily gained back in the prices you charge. That
suggests to me that the right way forward is in terms of making
the regulations stronger so that everybody is forced to meet them,
because in that sense the market is unlikely to meet them in a
straightforward economic sense where the market does not come
up with the right answer. I might be sympathetic to that but,
as I say, I am extending widely beyond my review and perhaps I
should stop.
Q463 Mr Challen: I was thinking earlier
on that perhaps we should have a supplementary Barker report on
the environmental issues. You have said that you regret not having
included more on that. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Would it be accepted by the ODPM?
Ms Barker: I certainly think there
should be an assessment on the environment and that is what the
review says.
Q464 Chairman: Beyond the Entec Report,
which obviously we already have?
Ms Barker: Yes, certainly beyond
the Entec Report. It is clear that the Entec Report itself did
not think that that was the final word on the issue. I hope that
the writers of the report would agree with me.
Q465 Chairman: There is an idea.
Perhaps we should recommend that DEFRA commissions you to do an
environmental report on housing, if they dare.
Ms Barker: It is very kind of
you to think of that.
Q466 Mr Challen: You said in your
report and in your memorandum to us that if we were to build at
the highest level of an additional 120,000 homes a year that would
only involve the use of an additional 0.75% of land in the south
east over the next ten years. Can you give us some more detail
about how you arrived at that figure of land usage, in terms of
housing densities and so on?
Ms Barker: I should straightforwardly
say that that was on an assumption which I pointed out was unrealistic,
that all the development was done in the south east, which, as
you will be well aware, I am not recommending. It was not an attempt
to try and draw rather emotive comments about concreting over
the south east. It was just an attempt to give a perspective to
that. On what densities I used, the density I used was 30.
Q467 Mr Challen: Your report states
that you have made an allowance for related infrastructure. Are
you able to give us a bit more detail about the related infrastructure?
Ms Barker: I am afraid I cannot
give you any more detail on that. I was given an estimate from
the ODPM because I asked them a question as to what they would
normally allow, when they were thinking about these land use issues,
for transport infrastructure.
Q468 Mr Challen: So they would provide
a standard figure to X number of dwellings?
Ms Barker: Yes.
Q469 Mr Challen: You did not look
at that in any detail?
Ms Barker: I did not, no.
Q470 Mr Challen: Finally, looking
at brownfield land, some house builders clearly think it is too
expensive and too difficult, and indeed lots of grants are made
towards the regeneration of brownfield land. In looking at the
use of brownfield land and the difficulties it poses and, reading
your report, the fear that perhaps greenfield land would be more
built on, have you perhaps paid too much attention to the view
of house builders and the difficulties that they say exist in
developing brownfield land?
Ms Barker: It is not just builders
who think there are difficulties in building on brownfield land
and achieving regeneration. If you have to remediate a site because
industry has done environmental damage to it in the past, that
is a very clear cost. In terms of the review, since I support
the continuation of the 60% build on brownfield policy, there
is a proposition for a consideration of further tax credit for
the use of contaminated land in order to bring that back. Clearly,
bringing contaminated land back is a costly business. No, I do
not think I did. What I did not want to do in the report was to
duck the point that if we are going to increase the rate of house
building inevitably we will increase the number of houses built
on greenfield land. I think to have asserted that it would be
possible to do all this extra on brownfield land, given the evidence
we have had from English Partnerships about the work that needs
to be done to continue to bring brownfield land forward, would
not be right. Equally, that does not mean that I do not think
we should continue with the 60% build on brownfield land, which
I think is absolutely possible.
Q471 Mr Challen: But does your report
in any way think there are any tensions in achieving that target?
We know where house builders are coming from.
Ms Barker: Yes, because if you
are talking about doing a greater degree of building it will undoubtedly
make it more difficult. That is part of the reason why the tax
credit is important. One of the reasons that I would welcome the
money that has gone into the Pathfinder projects is that what
I think is not right is to say that you could achieve all this
on brownfield land without some investment, and this investment
is clearly worth making because of the environmental benefits
you will get from it.
Q472 Mr Challen: Finally, on VAT,
there is a perverse incentive to build on greenfield. What are
your thoughts on that?
Ms Barker: There is quite a discussion
about VAT in the report. There was a variety of reasons why finally
VAT was not the route chosen, but one of the primary ones was
that VAT is meant to be charged on the whole cost of the new house,
whereas in some sense what you want to get back is something on
the uplift of land values. Because the planning gain supplement
is recommended to be charged at a lower rate on brownfield land,
that is supposed in some sense to do the job of VAT on greenfield
but I hope will do it rather better because the difficulty with
charging VAT on the whole house is that it would have more of
an impact on housing in the north of the country and less of an
impact in the south, which does not strike me as quite the right
way forward in terms of what we want to achieve.
Q473 Chairman: In relation to your
0.75% land take in the south east, and I appreciate this is illustrative,
am I right in thinking that that equates to the 70,000 hectares
that has been used elsewhere?
Ms Barker: I am afraid I do not
have that number absolutely in my mind.
Q474 Chairman: It equates to half
the size of Buckinghamshire. Put like that it sounds a bit bigger.
Ms Barker: If half the size of
Buckinghamshire is the same as that, that would be the right answer,
but I am afraid I do not know. I apologise.[3]
Q475 Chairman: There have been a
number of points during our conversation when you have said you
would like to have done something and did not have time to do
it. Would you have liked more time overall to have done your report?
Ms Barker: I am sure every reviewer
would like more time to do their reports. One of the things I
recognised early on was that this report could offer grandiose
ideas, and you think, "Fantastic. That will solve every problem
to do with housing supply". I very quickly realised that
housing supply is a desperately complex issue. Every answer was
not going to be given. I did not make an attempt to provide every
answer. What I tried to do was provide an answer for what I felt
was the core of my remit.
Q476 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. We may have some further questions for you which, if you
do not mind, we will put in writing.
Ms Barker: Sure.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
3 Note by the witness: The 0.75% of the South-East
figure (cited in the final report, pg 24) refers to the proportion
of the present developable, but underdeveloped (essentially greenfield)
land in the South-East that would be absorbed over the next 10
years by the higher rate of additional private sector building
proposed, 120,000 houses per year. This is on the highly unrealistic,
and indeed undesirable, scenario that all the additional development
occurs in the South-East. It also assumes 60% of development takes
place on previously developed (brownfield) land, that development
takes place at a density of 30 per hectare, and includes an allowance
for related infrastructure. This equates to a little over 10%
of Buckinghamshire. ODPM data indicates that the area of Buckinghamshire
is 187,000 hectares. Back
| 
