HC Deb 12 July 1972 vol 840 cc1806-16

2.38 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

After those rather detailed discussions on finance, hon. Members will be glad to turn their attention to a matter of great importance to my constituency.

The Thamesmead project, which was launched with wide and well-merited acclaim in 1969, with the approval of both political parties at County Hall, and which was subject to a public inquiry and some admirable public presentations, was a project for building a new town of 60,000 population, bringing its own work and industries to the area. It was a new architectural conception, to be built on marshes and strongly characterised by artificial lakes, with a marina, and built by new industrial building methods.

The basic concept was, and still is, admirable and imaginative. But the execution of the project in recent years has been lamentably unsuccessful. The project is three years behind already. The original huge contract with Cubitts was badly conceived and is a millstone around the neck. Successive Ministers have caused needless delays over deciding cost yardsticks. Labour relations have been bad. There has been a large number of unofficial strikes and demarcation problems on the site. Finally, the first flats occupied let in the rain.

The execution so far has been a story of disappointment, delay and soaring costs. It has produced a crisis of morale, for which, in my opinion, lack of overall drive and leadership is mainly responsible.

No one can doubt that a reappraisal of the project was necessary. But what kind of reappraisal was necessary? We needed to put the project back on course, to make up the time lost, to improve labour relations, to increase amenities and work prospects, and to get more drive and more leadership behind the project. What has the Greater London Council done? It has done exactly the opposite. Fewer houses are planned in the reappraisal—more than 8,000 fewer to be built by 1981—with a longer time to build them, fewer amenities, and less public open space.

The GLC says that its reappraisal is only a forecast, something on which it might improve. It is a strange attitude to make a forecast on the assumption of continuing failure and to call it a reappraisal. It assumes no change in the GLC's attitude and capacity for executing the plan.

What changes are needed? I take, first, the density forecasts for private building. The GLC accepts as inevitable a far lower density for private housing than the master plan laid down. True, the original 100 persons per acre in the master plan was high. But the revision in the reappraisal to 40 or 50 persons per acre is much too dastic. By itself, it drops the projected population of the new town from 60,000 to less than 50,000.

It is said in defence that private developers will not build these houses at higher densities. If that is true—it has not been shown yet—the answer is not to lower the densities but for the GLC itself to build houses, to sponsor their building, or at least to grant special loan and mortgage facilities. As far as I can see, the only reason for the GLC refusing to do this is that it is stated "not to be in line with general GLC policy". That is no argument at all. That is no reason for not, in the case of Thamesmead, taking on the responsibility for seeing that these private houses are built at a proper density.

Second, we need to speed up the building of the private houses. There is a temptation for private developers to holdback until every amenity is available on the estate. If that be so, again the answer is: let the GLC build the houses. It will have no difficulty in finding tenants from its waiting lists.

Next, I want the Minister to comment on the inadequate provision of public open space, even for the lower population now envisaged in the reappraisal. The 190 acres of public open space represents only a little over four acres per 1,000 population. When one takes away the space occupied by the lakes and high level walkways, it comes down to only only 2.94 acres per 1,000, below the basic standard for outer London boroughs.

The amount of playing field space for schools envisaged in the reappraisal plan is below the standards of the Inner London Education Authority. Fancy building a great new town, a great new conception, and failing to produce such public open space and playing fields for schools as to conform to the normal standards of the outer London boroughs and the ILEA.

The answer is to re-examine the density for private housing proposed in the reappraisal, to earmark permanently part of the reserved land at Crossness, and to see whether the amount of land earmarked for Ringway 2 can possibly be reduced.

Another point to which the Minister should reply concerns the provision of shopping and ancillary facilities. Obviously future inhabitants of Thames-mead have the right to full and proper provision in this respect, and as they are not there to lobby for it, this puts a special responsibility on the planners to bear their needs in mind. It is possible that under the reappraisal excessive provision will be made for shopping and ancillary facilities. I ask the Minister for a firm pledge that there will be no decision to use the extra 10 acres referred to in there appraisal for shopping and ancilliary purposes without a public inquiry or without the fullest consultation with the Greenwich and Bexley Borough Councils, and, since it would be a massive change in the master plan, without ministerial consent. Will the Minister assure us that the decision will be taken only after experience is gained of shoppers' needs?

The most important point of all concerns employment. A number of small industries employing hundreds of workers are already established in Thamesmead and more are going there. The 170 acres of industrial floorspace suggested in the reappraisal seem at first to be adequate. But these industries are not labour intensive. The industries now there and those likely to go there are likely to be more service industries, transport industries, even warehousing. There is already plenty of industrial floorspace in my constituency which is under-used or not used at all. The new factories are unlikely to create new employment and the new employers coming to Thamesmead are likely to bring many workers with them.

The prospect, therefore, looks a lot less cheerful, especially against the unemployment problem of the area. Unemployment has been a severe problem in my constituency in recent years. We used to be a traditional full-employment area but we are no longer. Unemployment has risen from about 550 in the early 1960s to 2,000 quite recently. It is not therefore only a Thamesmead problem. It is much wider and it results directly from policies of successive Governments and of the GLC.

The whole subject has been covered admirably in the Kentish Independent, one of our local newspapers. It says: A confidential report prepared by the Government's local controlling body, the South Eastern Economic Planning Council, puts this with horrifying clarity. It is essential that greater efforts be made to prevent premises vacated when a factory moves out of London from being taken over by another firm, and the GLC policy of acquiring premises from firms and moving them out of London has important planning implications both in providing housing land and improving the environment. The council urge the Government to make a major contribution to the buying up of vacated premises. That is to say that it is a policy of driving employment away from my constituency and from Greenwich while bringing tens of thousands of new residents into Thamesmead. That is nonsense. Woolwich is no longer an area of full employment and Thamesmead as a new town deserves to be treated on employment question as other new towns are treated.

We have been told endlessly that it is not the Government's fault, that no applications for industrial development certificates have been turned down recently. But that is not an answer, because so strict are the Government's regulations about IDCs that no one applies for them. Such discouragement has been given to employers to come to Greenwich that applicants for IDCs are put off. Nor is there any proof that, having been discouraged from coming to Greenwich, these would-beemployers go elsewhere. It may well be that as a result of the extremely strict administration of IDCs by the Government there is a net loss of investment and employment to the country. The success of Thamesmead requires from the Government a fresh policy aimed at full employment in Woolwich and the surrounding area. Without that, the whole Thamesmead project is in danger.

To sum up, Thamesmead is and remains a fine, imaginative conception, but it is endangered by lack of drive and leadership in execution. The reappraisal by the GLC is simply a defeatist forecast of failure. We need to take urgent action to regain momentum and in particular to increase the number of houses, to speed up their building and to increase public open space.

2.51 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I thank the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for raising an important subject about a part of South-East London. I cannot give him all the satisfaction he requires, because my position and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is particularly difficult, as I shall explain.

The hon. Gentleman started by briefly sketching in the history of the Thamesmead scheme. He was right to say that the project was envisaged as a major contribution to London's housing needs, and was designed on comprehensive lines to provide for a population of some 60,000 people. Land use proposals were submitted to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in the form of an amendment to the Initial Development Plan for Greater London. The proposals included land allocations for housing, schools, public open space, a Central Area, roads, industry and other uses. They were the subject of a lengthy public local inquiry, and were approved with modifications by the Minister in 1969. Work on the project started soon afterwards.

The GLC has been carrying out a reappraisal of the Thamesmead Scheme during recent months in the light of experience gained during the first stages of the development. As a result of this reappraisal, the GLC thinks it necessary to make certain changes to the project as originally envisaged. The most important of these is a reduction in the total population from 60,000 to between 45,300 and 48,500 and a reduction in the number of houses to be provided.

The GLC also proposes certain changes in the amount of land to be used for schools and public open space and has come to the conclusion that the original programming of the project needs revision. At the same time it is proposing certain increases in the amount of land allocated for offices, and is carrying out a review of the central area with a view to its possible extension at a later date.

The hon. Gentleman posed a number of specific questions about open space, shopping and education. The difficulty is that the planning proposals arising from the reappraisal may need to be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at some future date, and he would then have to exercise his quasi-judicial functions in respect of them. That means that I cannot tonight, or perhaps until further action has been taken in respect of the Secretary of State, comment on the merits of the GLC's revised proposals. What I can deal with are the procedural aspects. I know that there is considerable concern in the area about them.

Under planning legislation, the GLC's revised proposals could be handled in one of two ways. Either the GLC could seek permission from the Secretary of State to submit further proposals for amending the initial development plans or specific proposals could be dealt with as departures from the development plan approved by the Minister in 1969. Under this procedure, any proposal which was regarded by the local planning authority as a substantial departure from the development plan would have to be referred to the Secretary of State, and he could if he wished decide the matter himself after holding a public local inquiry.

I understand that the GLC wishes to deal with its revised proposals as departures from the development plan instead of in the context of a further application to amend the development plan. Bexley and Greenwich Borough Councils, on the other hand, seem to favour a development plan amendment, so that the revised proposals can be dealt with as a whole instead of as the need arises and therefore be the subject of a comprehensive inquiry. It is for the GLC to decide which of those two procedures should be followed.

My Department has told the GLC that we see no objection to the departure procedure being used, provided that every opportunity is given to the borough councils and other interested parties to object to the proposed development. The need for consultations between the GLC and the two borough councils has also been stressed.

I can see the validity of the borough councils' argument that the revised proposals should be dealt with as a whole. I think I must make the point, however, that an old-style development plan amendment is a very lengthy and cumbersome process which we are seeking to replace by the speedier, more flexible processes incorporated in the new structure plan and local plan system. We are particularly anxious that local planning authorities should not use their resources in preparing further old-style development plan amendments when they should be looking forward and thinking in terms of the new development plan system. In London, the Greater London Development Plan is under consideration by the Secretary of State. When it has been decided, the boroughs will be preparing their local plans. We are therefore concerned that further old-style development plan amendments should not be introduced at this late stage if it can possibly be avoided.

If the GLC decides to use the departure procedure, any substantial proposal would have to be advertised, objections invited and referred to the Secretary of State. If the proposal were the subject of strong opposition by the borough councils or others, it would almost certainly be decided by the Secretary of State after a public local inquiry. The use of this procedure would not, therefore, deprive the boroughs of the opportunity to object and they would, if the Secretary of State thought fit, be able to pursue their objections at a public inquiry.

The departure procedure also has merit—and this is important in view of what the hon. Gentleman said—in that decisions can usually be taken much more quickly than would be possible with an old-style development plan amendment and they could achieve a degree of flexibility which would not be possible with a formal amendment. As I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the speed of the project, that point is important.

Mr. Mayhew

Before leaving that, will the Minister say which of the departures in the reappraisal are substantial departures and therefore need the Minister's consent?

Mr. Speed

I cannot give a specific answer. We have had no proposals at all. The sort of things the hon. Gentleman mentioned when considering the amendments of the initial development plan—major proposals for housing and open spaces—would, I expect, be substantial departures that I would not wish at this stage to prejudge, otherwise I might be commenting on the merits. The hon. Gentleman can take it that most of the major matters to which he referred and which are causing local concern would fall within this system.

The employment situation is fundamentally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman said that because of the regulations many people did not submit IDCs. He admitted that for Woolwich there had been no refusals in the period from July, 1970 to June, 1972 and that in Erith there had been only one refusal in the same period. There have been a substantial number of approvals which have led to the creation of additional employment opportunities. There is the difficulty—and it has been recognised by successive Governments—that the first priority must go to the assisted areas. If regional policy means anything at all, that policy must be upheld.

There is the question of the next priority down the line with the new and expanded towns. The hon. Member argued that Thamesmead should be treated in this category. So far, as he knows, successive Governments have not found it possible to treat Thamesmead in this category, and certainly I cannot to night give him any assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the policy will be reviewed. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must make it clear that in the present situation—considering the severe regional problems and what has happened regarding the Industry Bill and other Measures now going through the House—it would be unrealistic to expect any early change in the position.

The industrial development certificate picture shows that there have been a substantial number of approvals and very few refusals. No doubt that will be borne in mind, particularly by London-based firms wishing to expand in the area, and those the Department of Trade and Industry would wish to encourage.

I cannot comment on the merits of the matter—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands why—but I re-emphasise that if the Greater London Council decides—and it is a matter for that council—to use departure procedures for implementing its revised proposals for Thamesmead, pending a decision on the Greater London Development Plan and the introduction of new-style local plans, I see no reason for dissuading it. I hope, however, that the GLC will take every opportunity of fully consulting the Bexley and Greenwich Borough Councils before formalising any proposals arising from the re-appraisal of Thamesmead. I am sure that it will do this, and that at the end of the day—depending on what objections are received not only from local authorities but from other interested parties—the other problems I have outlined in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be involved can be resolved after appropriate public inquiries.

I hope that that reassurance will help the hon. Member and his constituents to see that no final decision has yet been taken and that the procedures exist so that these matters can be investigated and the final decision can rest with my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock a.m.