Examination of Witnesses (Questions 205-219)
RT HON
KEITH HILL
MP, RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP, MR JOE
MONTGOMERY AND
MR ANDREW
WELLS
19 OCTOBER 2004
Q205 Chairman: Can I welcome you to the
second session of the Committee on the Annual Report and Accounts
of the Department and ask you to identify yourselves, for the
record, please?
Mr Raynsford: Good morning. I
am Nick Raynsford, the Minister for Local and Regional Government,
and I am accompanied by Keith Hill, Minister for Housing and Planning.
Jeff Rooker, the Minister responsible for regeneration, unfortunately
is not able to be with us today, for reasons I think you understand,
and we have two officials here who will deal with questions relating
to his area of responsibility, Andrew Wells and Joe Montgomery.
That is our team.
Chairman: Thank you very much. If you
do not want to say anything by way of introduction and are happy
for us to go straight to questions, I will ask David Clelland
to start.
Q206 Mr Clelland: Just before I start,
Chairman, could I draw attention to my entry in the Members' Register
of Interests relating to housing issues, which might come up later
on. Good morning, gentlemen. Could you summarise the Delivery
Plans agreed for the projects under the Thames Gateway programme
and perhaps say something about their progress so far, in terms
of their spend and the timescales, and how much of an underspend
there was on the programme?
Mr Hill: As you know, in the Sustainable
Communities Plan announcement of July of last year, we announced
a total package for the spending period of £446 million for
the Thames Gateway. That package has been rolled over into the
next spending round with an initial spend, I estimate, of something
of the order of £394 million by 2007-08. The spending programme,
which is devoted to a range of sustainability issues, clearly
investment in the physical infrastructure by way of land remediation,
flood defences, transport links as well as investment in education
and health facilities, is going forward. Last year we spent our
£40 million objective in full. This year we are continuing
with those projects and new projects. I think that our expected
expenditure in total this year is about £190 million, subject
to correction on that. We have announced that there is a current
underspend of £50 million and we have invited further bids
to dispose of that, but we do expect to be on target for our spending
plans over the period.
Q207 Chairman: I am sorry, "dispose
of" implies that you are going to put it in the waste-paper
basket, does it not?
Mr Hill: I can assure you it does
not imply that, Chairman. These are on a whole range of valuable
projects which go really to the heart of the concept of sustainability,
as you know. We have said, certainly I have said repeatedly, that
there is no question of our repeating the errors of the past,
in terms of the construction of soulless housing estates. Sustainability
is about more than bricks and mortar, it is about providing the
essential public services and infrastructure which go to make
communities in which people positively want to live, where they
have children, where they want to bring up their families and
which will renew themselves into the future.
Q208 Mr Clelland: How will the London
2012 Olympics bid impact on the Thames Gateway?
Mr Hill: Of course, we are strongly
supportive of the Olympics bid and have been working very closely
to deliver the initial stages of the bid, not least in terms of
the support we give to the London Development Agency for land
assembly and the support that we have given to the very successful
initial stages of dealing with planning permissions to facilitate
the development of the Olympics site in the lower Lea Valley.
Certainly we will continue actively on that programme, but we
do not expect that to divert resources from other main ODPM programmes.
Q209 Mr Clelland: It will not affect
the regeneration programmes of ODPM, there will not be any funding
diverted from that?
Mr Hill: No.
Q210 Mr Clelland: It will not have any
impact, as far as the ODPM is concerned, on spending in the regions
and still in London?
Mr Hill: Certainly not.
Q211 Chairman: Can I just be clear, on
this £50 million underspend, what was supposed to be bought
with that £50 million?
Mr Hill: Chairman, it can be a
range of interventions, support for educational facilities, support
for community facilities, support for environmental improvement,
we are open to the whole range of bids within the main themes
of investment that we have identified for the Gateway.
Q212 Chairman: We were supposed to be
quite clear that all these things had to be done in advance, before
the houses were built. What you are saying is that there was a
slippage of £50 million in that programme, so what effect
does it have on the delivery of the houses, are they going to
be able to catch up, all that stuff which should have been done
last year and still has not been done?
Mr Hill: Our experience is that,
at least at these early stages of the programme, because you will
understand that, quite clearly, projects need to be worked up
and for a proper evaluation that takes some time and resource
and certainly we will not support projects which are not well
founded, but both last year and I think certainly for this year
the major commitment will take place towards the end of the annual
spending round.
Q213 Sir Paul Beresford: Would you not
agree that the focus which was announced is on inputs not outputs
and that really we ought to be looking at what you have produced
for it? For example, it is possible, and I think it is doubtful
that it has happened, that actually £50 million could be
efficiency savings which a department is required to make. In
other words, you may have met the programme for less?
Mr Hill: You will be pleased to
know, Sir Paul, that, as a conscientious Minister, I took the
trouble to read the transcript of your previous meeting with officials
from the Department and I think you will recall that the main
thrust of the argument is that, in terms of efficiency, we are
looking not necessarily to achieve actual savings but rather to
improve outputs for a given and increasing level of investment.
I think we are beginning to see that, with housing completions
20% up this year in the Thames Gateway.
Q214 Sir Paul Beresford: What would your
Department say to a local authority which said, "Yes, we're
required to make savings, we're required to keep a council tax
rise down; we've actually spent more but we've got more for it"?
Mr Raynsford: This is a constant
challenge to ensure that we are looking for efficiency savings,
both in our own programmes and indeed through local authority
programmes. I think most people would accept that it is possible,
particularly when in fields like procurement and construction
there is very considerable evidence that significant savings can
be made through adopting best practice to square that circle.
We do want to see improved performance, but also we want to see
a very, very relentless pursuit of economy.
Q215 Sir Paul Beresford: If the local
authority you were threatening to cap came along and said, "Well,
actually, Minister, we've adopted your mode on efficiency savings,
we haven't saved any money, we're spending the same amount, or
more, but we're getting more for it," would that be acceptable?
Mr Raynsford: With respect, they
would not be adopting dual mode, they would be operating on a
single mode of seeking simply to achieve greater outputs. We think
they should be looking for both.
Q216 Christine Russell: How well are
you getting on in reaching the target of 60% new development on
brownfield sites by 2008 and are there any marked regional differences
anywhere which give you cause for concern?
Mr Hill: On the last point, I
do not think I am aware of marked regional differences which give
us cause for concern. There is no complacency but we are very
happy with our record on brownfield. As you know, we announced
a target of 60% for, I think, 2006 for new-build on brownfield
sites and in 2002 we achieved 66%, in other words, more than our
stated objective, and I have no reason to believe that is likely
to reduce as time goes by.
Q217 Christine Russell: Are you likely
to change the targets, increase them to 75%, 80%?
Mr Hill: I do not think we are
contemplating that. I think it is worth remembering that, both
in terms of the growth areas and the market renewal programme,
where it is important to remember that we are looking at new-build
as well as demolition and clearance, we anticipate that high levels
of new-build will be on brownfield sites. Indeed, it is estimated
that in the Thames Gateway, for example, something like 80% of
the new-build will be on brownfield.
Q218 Christine Russell: Can I ask you
about an aspect of planning policy which does cause quite a lot
of concern. That is where, usually in suburban areas, you get
a very large house, with very generous, landscaped gardens and
an application comes in to the local authority to demolish that
house and replace it with blocks of flats and in fact fill up
the whole site. Whereas, I am sure you will agree, high density
housing has become acceptable in town and city centres, I think
you do get this resentment when it happens in more suburban settings?
Mr Hill: I am very well aware,
Ms Russell, of those concerns. Indeed, I have had many representations
from parliamentary colleagues on the subject and have dealt with
a couple of debates on the floor of the House of Commons on the
same subject. If I might say so, as a Member of Parliament representing
a constituency which is, at least in part, of a suburban character,
I recognise those issues myself. I think the answer lies with
the issue of design, and I think what we expect local planning
authorities to take into account are the quality of the new building
which is proposed and, of course, its relationship to its environment.
Therefore, I think I can say that we would be anxious about an
excessively dense or massive development in those circumstances.
Let me point out also that parliamentary colleagues and local
planning authorities complain about a somewhat aggressive style
on the part of some developers in terms of applications, and you
will know that as part and parcel of the new planning legislation
we have limited the possibilities for repeat applications.
Q219 Christine Russell: At the moment
you have no intention to review planning law which, at the moment,
deems that gardens technically are previously-used development
of brownfield?
Mr Hill: No, we have not, subject
to the qualifications which I have just mentioned. In that respect,
there is seamless continuity of policy between the previous administration's
1996 White Paper on urban and rural development and our own policies.
|
