Examination of Witnesses (Questions 539
- 559)
WEDNESDAY 13 OCTOBER 2004
MR KELVIN
MACDONALD
AND MR
DAVID BARRACLOUGH
Q539 Chairman: Welcome. Thank you
very much for coming and thank you very much for your memorandum
and your patience in sitting through the previous session. I am
hoping that we will be able to wind this up by around 5.20/5.25,
just to give you some idea of time. We will see how we go. You
have just heard that the Countryside Agency has been pretty critical
of the Barker agenda, indeed we have had a lot of evidence that
is critical of it, concerns particularly being expressed about
the erosion of democratic responsibility for planning and the
marketisation of the whole planning process, but these seem to
be things that you are pretty relaxed about; is that right?
Mr MacDonald: We are not relaxed
about them. Clearly, our evidence says that we welcome overall
the Barker Review but we welcome it on the basis that, in terms
of housing numbers and the facts that it points up with regard
to the housing crisis that we face in this country, it is nothing
really new. So, in those terms, we do not think it is a step change.
That is not to say that every aspect of the Barker Review we welcome
equally.
Q540 Chairman: I am just going to
quiz you on the housing crisis. In your memorandum, you say that
there is nothing new about this and that this has been going on
for years, governments have been making predictions for years.
What kind of crisis is a crisis that goes on for years? A crisis
is something different from a state of affairs which has existed
for a very long time, is it not?
Mr MacDonald: I think in some
way it is a growing but hidden crisis. For example, we are approaching
the figure of 100,000 households in temporary accommodation. I
would see that as being a crisis.
Q541 Chairman: So, there is something
new about it?
Mr MacDonald: It is exponential
in its growth; it is reaching the level of a crisis. What we are
saying is that the figures are not new. Under the previous administration,
we had 4.4 million I think it was, after that we had 3.8 million,
then it was 4.1 million, and we have just had household projections
released two weeks ago which put the figure up again. So, the
overall figure of the number of new households in this country
is not new. That is what we are saying about Barker. I was going
to say that that does not mean to say that we welcome every aspect
of the Barker Review. We do have serious concerns, for example,
not about affordable housing but about this affordability trigger
that the planning system is meant to adopt as some sort of local
measure of when new housing is needed. It is very clear that the
affordability of housing certainly relies on the supply of land
and that relies on the planning system, but it also relies on
a whole range of other factors that are beyond the control of
a land use based planning system. So, to use that as a simple,
if not simplistic, indicator of need, we do have our concerns
about it. We are not just welcoming Barker point blank and saying
that this is all wonderful, we do have our concerns. On the final
point you were making about loss of democratic control, some aspects
of Barker, as again we mentioned in the evidence, could open the
door to a greater public involvement and greater democratic control.
When the Barker Review talks about, for example, indicating to
communities the real values and the real disbenefits of development
in a way that I do not think has been done properly up until now
in order that they can make the decision on a sounder basis, I
think that can lead to greater democratic control rather than
less.
Q542 Mr Thomas: I want to look at
some of the aspects of the Barker Report now and we may as one
start with the one you have just mentioned which is the automatic
trigger. You sound a little sceptical now and, in your memorandum
to us, you said this was not much different to the fact that there
is an inbuilt sort of five-year process already there with unity
development plans, that local authorities are already looking
to 2011-12 in what allowance they are making now. What do you
see being different in the triggering process to that which we
have now?
Mr MacDonald: Two things. Clearly,
the Barker Review is economically based. The triggers that she
uses in the review—
Q543 Mr Thomas: They are solely price
based.
Mr MacDonald: Yes, so that is
new and I am sure that the Committee has had a whole range of
definitions of planning, but one of the roles of planning is not
just to take one single indicator and say that mechanism has been
triggered and therefore we need to release more land, there are
a whole range of other factors that need to be taken into account:
the capacity of the area to take more growth and the external
factors that lead to that mechanism being triggered. So, that
focus on that trigger is new. The second thing is that policy
is moving on and the point we were making in the evidence about
the five-year supply was with particular reference to the Barker
recommendation that local planning authorities should almost over-allocate
120 or 140% of their land. The point we are making here is that,
even as we speak, new mechanisms for environmental assessment
and sustainability assessment are coming through the planning
process and the point we are making is that, if you over-allocate
and you need the environmental assessment of strategies, then
that needs to go through that mill as well. So, you are not saying
to step outside the planning system with this, you are saying
that you cannot just—
Q544 Mr Thomas: Will you caution
against an automatic trigger? Will you caution against purely
price-based trigger for release in a particular area?
Mr MacDonald: A purely price-based
figure, yes, we would caution against. As a rider, what I do agree
with and what the Institute agrees with is that the planning system
does need to be perhaps more sensitive than it is to understanding
the market and to understanding the effects of their decisions
on the market but also how the market is operating. So, we are
not again going into our little sort of land use shells. We are
saying that we need to understand the market but to just have
one trigger is insufficient.
Q545 Mr Thomas: It seems to me therefore
that we have two really big conflicts here. We have one where
you say that the planning system should be more understanding
of the market—I am a sceptic; I do not believe that the
market is delivering affordable housing particularly in my constituency
now for example, so I would be a sceptic there, but let us just
think about how that may happen—but also you mentioned earlier
about how this whole process, the Barker Review and what flows
on from that, could be more democratic. It could empower people
in communities to say what they would like to see developed and
so forth and we heard from the Countryside Agency earlier about
some of the processes about managing change that will be happening
in local communities. Where do you, as an institute, see the process—and
I think we have to talk in a sense about control in that process
here because, at the moment, it is fairly clear that it is the
local planning authority that controls that process—in the
future being controlled particularly under the Barker Review and
how do you see, what I would suspect is in most communities, conserving
inherent conservatism, to keep what they have and not to barter
and trade it, actually meets with a market imperative to provide
more homes? We know that, with or without Barker, you would want
to see the planning process development happen.
Mr Barraclough: I think the control,
as you put it, remains within the planning authority. Whatever
the housing figures that you are providing for in your new local
development framework, those figures have cascaded down from some
regional spatial strategy and it is for the local planning process
to at least deliver the sites for those houses on the ground.
Given the Government's very heavy emphasis on frontloading of
the new plan-making process—involve the community, involve
absolutely everyone at the outside, though you cannot actually
make people involved but perhaps that is another matter, and the
local planning authority is charged with going out there and discussing
its proposals at a very early stage with the whole community,
the whole stakeholders, groups and what-have-you—that is
the process by which you finish up with X, Y and Z allocated for
housing in your development through the normal democratic process.
Q546 Mr Thomas: I can accept that
you are not challenging the fundamentals of the planning process,
you are asking for further consideration to be taken into account
if you like, but where does that leave the under-tendency? It
seems to me that, within planning at the moment, there are two
conflicting tendencies: you have a tendency, perhaps represented
by the Countryside Agency, to be very locally based, looking at
local needs assessment, visioning, 20/20 vision and all the rest
of it, working with local communities in a very intense way to
get them to think about what their local community could look
like in a few years time and how they might prepare for that,
and you have this other process which does not really hold any
hostages which simply says, "We need an extra 100 homes here
because there is a development coming in there." How do you
marry those two?
Mr Barraclough: It is not quite
like that.
Q547 Mr Thomas: It looks like it
sometimes.
Mr Barraclough: You might question
where the regional housing figure comes from and I would point
to things like our notion of a UK spatial development strategy
and things of that sort . . .
Q548 Mr Thomas: Which you have always
been keen on.
Mr Barraclough: . . . to provide
some overall context for planning at the regional level, but the
regional planning process—and there are arguments about
democratic deficit and all sorts of things which we need not go
into now—
Q549 Mr Francois: Why not?
Mr Barraclough: I can if you like!
. . . finishes up with in effect an allocation of housing numbers
and whether it is Barker 120% of the figure you first thought
of or whether it is the 100%, it allocates those at local authority
county or district council level depending on the structure of
planning authorities in the region. So, that has gone through
some sort of democratic process in the first place ending up at
that regional distribution and it is left to the individual local
development plans, forgetting all the acronyms in the new system,
to sort out the site specific allocations and whether we are talking
about a new settlement or developing this brownfield site here
or whatever. That, in theory, goes through the participatory process
and it is a democratic decision of the local planning authority
at the end of the day. We are all old enough and wise enough to
know that it is not always perfect and the system is not ideal
and the present system that we are talking about has not even
been tested of course, its commencement was only last week, so
we will have to wait a month or two before the first plans appear.
Q550 Mr Thomas: We will indeed and
I think we will probably have to wait for another debate to really
think about how all these local plans actually work, but I am
grateful that you have clarified about your attitude towards the
trigger and the market-based mechanisms. Let us just assume for
a second that, in some way, shape or form, Barker or something
like it, is implemented and we are seeing these new homes developed.
The next consideration must be about the impact of these homes
on the local environment and in terms of sustainability in general,
and again you said in evidence to the Committee that you thought
that the Barker proposals would be fairly neutral in their effect
on environmental sustainability. Is that not a disappointing thing
to have given in evidence to this Committee?
Mr Barraclough: It is in the context
of what we said earlier, that the Barker figures are little different
than those that have gone before, so Barker per se would
have a fairly neutral effect on the need for a particular local
planning authority area to accommodate a particular amount of
new housing.
Q551 Mr Thomas: I can appreciate
that.
Mr Barraclough: In the numerical
sense we are saying that—
Q552 Mr Thomas: In a numerical sense
they are fairly neutral but what about the qualitative sense about
having more sustainable homes, better locations, passive solar
heating and all the sorts of things that architects must be really
fascinated in?
Mr MacDonald: What we are saying,
just to clarify again and at the risk of repeating ourselves,
is that the Barker figures do not bring anything new, but clearly
the need or the demand or whatever we want to call it for a very
significant amount of new housing in this country can have serious
environmental impact and impact on the sustainability of this
country. One could look at it positively—and planners always
look positively at everything—and say that this gives us
a huge opportunity. Things like Thames Gateway and things like
the growth areas give us a wonderful opportunity to say that we
understand more about the impact of housing now in terms of drainage,
insulation and in terms of all the other things that this Committee
is considering. With this huge number of housing—it is not
just odd job lots of housing here and there, it is mass numbers
of housing—we have a really good opportunity now to say,
"Let us build this thinking into the housing."
Q553 Mr Thomas: Specially, Barker
does not do that, does she? Her report does not do that. I am
not saying that does not happen.
Mr MacDonald: She does not bring
that out sufficiently. She certainly talks through the land supply
question because that is what she was meant to talk about and
she certainly talks through the impact on land. One of the interesting
figures in Barker is that she has calculated, as you know, that
less than 1% of the land area of the south east would be taken
if you crammed all the new housing into that, but that of course
is a negative side of the issue.
Q554 Mr Thomas: It does not take
account of the market either, does it?
Mr MacDonald: No. It would be
a wonderful settlement to see but it does not look at the positive
aspect, it is arguing against the NIMBY tendency to say, "Well,
it is not a huge land take." It is not saying, "This
is an opportunity to really create something wonderful for the
future."
Q555 Mr Thomas: Different sorts of
communities. Can I just ask you a final thing about that aspect
of Barker. We talked a little about whether there is full consideration
of the impact of this housing but it is also about the rates of
development because it is not only about the amount that you propose,
it is also about the time over which you propose to develop it
because it has huge implications for the skills level in the construction
industry and for the technology that might be available to come
into a home whether it be market tested or we are talking about
CHP or net metering or whatever it might be. Those may be a few
years down the line, yet we are talking about the here and now.
Do you really think that the sort of proposals there which are
about density and brownfield construction in particular are going
to ameliorate the effect of the rates of these developments in
these growth areas? Are they sufficient?
Mr MacDonald: I am sorry, you
will need to clarify that.
Q556 Mr Thomas: What I am thinking
is that it seems to me that Barker says, "This is what we
need to do." In fact, it will not be that bad because, as
you just said, it is only 1% of the south east and, what is more,
we are going to use brownfield and there are all these things
that may be happening to ameliorate the effect on the environment
of this development. At the same time, if you just stop and think
about what this is actually saying, the rate of development needed
for the market to deliver, even under a market-based system, affordable
housing down the line—presumably the market starts with
the best quality housing and the most expensive housing and only
later delivers the really affordable stuff—is going to ride
roughshod over any real environmental benefit that comes from
brownfield developments or intense development. That is what I
am putting to you and I wondered what you thought of that.
Mr MacDonald: I can see that argument
clearly now. Again, I think there are a number of aspects to this
and one is a fairly trite aspect. You mentioned brownfield development
and clearly there is a target of 60% brownfield development which
means that 40% of the growth must be on greenfield development,
which is an aspect of the target that we tend to forget. Secondly,
as you say, it appears—and I do not have evidence for this—that
the Government are meeting their targets up to whatever it is,
64 or 65%, partly because it is the easier sites that are coming
on stream first and we are starting to come up against the sites
that need remediation and that have been used for other uses,
and I think that the Government do admit that—I am not an
apologist for the Government—and they say that is why they
are not changing the target because they realise that it is going
to be harder to achieve in the future. So, you will not get that
rate at the moment unless you look again constructively, if that
is not a contradiction in terms, at development on greenfield
land and do that again through the planning system in the form
of planned settlements, in the form of settlements that take into
account sustainability principles, not just in the case of individual
houses and how they deal with drainage and all the other things
but in terms of density, in terms of the location of work to home
and all these things that we know more about. So, you will not
meet the rate and it will be an unsustainable programme unless
the planning system intervenes in I think a far stronger way than
it has up until now.
Mr Barraclough: Can I just add
to that by saying that, on density, the jury is probably still
out to some extent. There is no evidence that there is any real
thought given to the figures that appear in PPG3, why those figures
rather than any others were chosen, but there are question marks
about market acceptability except in the case of probably very
expensive town centre/city centre developments and there are also
questions as to what is going on about the extent to which it
is possible to put sustainable drainage systems and so on into
a high density development. There is work currently going on about
that. I think there are some question marks about the density
question, if not the brownfield. Brownfield seems to be doing
pretty nicely, thank you. Density is a different problem.
Q557 Mr Francois: Gentlemen, you
make the point about the new planning system being very heavy
on front-end consultation, about people being consulted about
where houses should be built, about the type of housing, what
infrastructure they think should accompany it and I have heard
all that but, from the point of the RTPI, is the one great weakness
in all of this that the one thing they are not really allowed
to be told about is the number of houses that are built in their
district because that drives everything else and, under this system,
they have no say in it? Does the RTPI agree with that or not?
Mr MacDonald: It is a quirk of
the system.
Q558 Mr Francois: It is more than
a quirk.
Mr MacDonald: In terms that the
regional spatial strategies, these wonderful regionally based
things, are meant to set a broad strategy for the whole area in
terms of a whole range of things but, when it comes to housing,
they allocate the numbers down to the district level, which is
what you are referring to. In some ways, can you do it in any
other way? What one would hope would happen—and this is
a hope, I must admit—is that it would be this sort of circular
process. You were talking earlier about things like village design
statements and one of the lessons from those, I think, is not
necessarily the process itself but, when people talk about their
own area and their local area, they also talk about housing need
and they know people who are in housing need, they can see the
need for housing, and when you talk through other systems like
the community strategies that local authorities are producing,
people are talking about housing need in a way that they do not
through the planning system. So, if you can capture that sort
of discussion about housing need and feed that back up through
the system. I do not know how this is going to work and, to be
honest, I do not imagine that that is how the Government think
it is going to work, but you are going to get a very dangerous
situation if those figures are just imposed on local areas through
a regional spatial strategy. So, we do need to find ways and it
may be through front-ending the local development framework system
to feed that back up the way.
Q559 Mr Francois: Just to make sure
that I have understood you, I want to capture that because it
is important. We could have, in your words, a very dangerous situation
if these numbers are simply imposed on local communities.
Mr MacDonald: Simply imposed,
yes. I am using my words carefully. Simply imposed, both those
words.
|
