HC Deb 24 February 1978 vol 944 cc1960-72

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn—(Mr. Graham.]

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

I am very glad to have this opportunity to bring before the House the problems of the Frankley overspill area of Birmingham, which is sited in my constituency, problems that I have been trying to raise by this means for the past six months.

It may be of assistance to the House if I recall that the decision to proceed with this development was taken in the first instance by the noble Lord Lord Greenwood when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government by an executive decision. I think that in retrospect the decision can be classified as unfortunate in that the site selected covered the area of three different local authorities, that number being reduced to two under local government reorganisation. It is from this straddling of boundaries that many of the difficulties of which I shall speak originated.

I should perhaps briefly report the progress of the development. About 2,100 houses out of the 4,500 planned have now been completed. They have a very high occupancy—about 3.4 people per dwelling—and on that basis one would expect a final population, including the Gannow development, of about 22,000 people.

To set the development in context, I may perhaps compare it with the development at Droitwich, which is to comprise about 3,900 houses. The difference between the two is significant. Whereas Droitwich was planned as a community able to stand on its own feet—with industry and other provisions from the start—Frankley has been a dependent satellite of the conurbation of Birmingham. There has been no provision for independent employment or other facilities for this area.

I should make it plain that I am not trying to rehearse a category of "new town blues", with which I am unfortunately only too familiar in the case of Redditch New Town. All I am trying to highlight are the specific difficulties for the inhabitants of Frankley. Most of them are tenants of the Birmingham council. They have been allocated rented housing in that area. It is important to bear in mind that they are Birmingham citizens who have been allocated housing by the Birmingham council and who pay their rent and rates to that authority.

However, the rate proportion is handed on to Hereford and Worcester. That is very difficult for the residents to understand. They similarly find it difficult to understand why they can no longer obtain facilities to which they were previously accustomed—even such minor things as dustbins, which they now have to pay for and which were previously provided free. There are no longer garden sheds in their gardens. There are other irritations and reductions of that nature in their standard of living. But the planning aspects are the main features that I should like to bring out first.

I have already referred to the fact that the site was incorrectly planned to straddle several local authority boun- daries. This has been made worse, and aggravated, by the different treatment accorded to those authorities by the Government in the rate support grant and, more recently, in their policy on inner city areas. Apart from that major point of principle, there are particular detailed points of planning—such as the erection of a public house currently in progress immediately adjacent to the school, which is causing great concern to parents and to the school authorities.

Of course, the parents themselves would vastly prefer some provision for shopping. They are badly provided for in this respect at present. At a forum held this week by local Conservative councillors, the absence of shopping facilities was the first item on the agenda. There is at present only one newsagent who is able to sell very few goods. Parents, particularly mothers, would naturally prefer shops near the school or perhaps a doctor's surgery. There is at present temporary accommodation for this facility. That is not at all convenient and we are wondering when there will be proper health facilities to serve the 22,000 inhabitants.

One can also refer on planning grounds to the proposal currently being put forward for the construction of a secure mental institution. There are already three mental hospitals adjacent to this area. But there is at present under consideration a proposal for a security building. This has given rise to a great deal of concern in view of the lack of police coverage in the area and the large number of elderly and disabled people. I shall return to them in a moment.

I should also point out that the nearest chemist shop is 4½ miles distant. The elderly people are accommodated in purpose-built, wardened accommodation with which they are very pleased. But it has been designed and constructed without the provision of any facilities for the inhabitants such as a nearby chemist shop or a post office. No post office is planned.

Added to this sense of isolation is the scarcity of telephone kiosks. It is customary to have to walk three-quarters of a mile to find a telephone kiosk. That makes a round trip of 1½ miles to make a telephone call.

Leading on from the planning considerations, the problems of communication and the sense of isolation that the residents feel have been increased greatly by the difficulty over bus services and bus passes. In the Birmingham area, covered by the West Midland Passenger Transport Executive, free bus passes are issued for travel throughout the area of that authority, whereas, in the area covered by the Bromsgrove District Council bus passes are issued only against payment and are then only available on restricted routes and at restricted times of the day.

This, of course, is very hard for the Birmingham tenants to understand, but it is a real difficulty because, as a result, the bus services themselves stop at what is locally described as "Checkpoint Charlie". There is a sort of Berlin Wall between Birmingham and Hereford and Worcester at that point. People are perhaps only 50 yards or in some cases 100 yards on the other side of that "Berlin Wall", and they see stopping there the buses, the meals on wheels, the coach to take them to the disabled club and all the other facilities to which they have been accustomed, and they cannot understand why they are no longer able to enjoy them. This has made them feel very isolated and neglected.

This apartheid—that is too strong a word—this discrimination in treatment and isolation, extends to people seeking to continue adult education courses because of the requirement that the Hereford and Worcester authority shall pay £50 in each case to the Birmingham authority to enable people to continue their classes.

These are all everyday considerations for the inhabitants, and they have led to a feeling of isolation and the view that the whole development has not been thought out properly.

There have been some improvements. I am not saying that the whole picture is one of neglect. There is the North Worcestershire Development Committee, on which members from the authorities sit. They do their best. But this boundary restriction makes matters very difficult for them in their efforts to continue to maintain the services. It is only recently that temporary arrangements have been made for people to collect their social security payments from Northfield rather than having to go to Kidderminster, with which there is no transport connection, and for unemployment benefit to Selly Oak. I must stress that these arrangements are temporary and there is no guarantee about how long they will continue. Similarly, the tax office for the area is situated in Redditch, again without any direct transport connection.

The other main item which I wish to cover in this necessarily brief speech concerns security. I must point out that the strength of the police force in my division has not been increased in any way to take account of this new population. The chief superintendent is doing his best to cover the area on a fire brigade basis, but he has been quite unable to build up and develop the contacts with the population, especially the youth of the area, which he regards as a vital part in maintaining law and order and creating a proper relationship with the police.

There are a number of problem families in the area. At my advice bureau last Saturday a woman was complaining about a neighbour who regularly fires an airgun out of his first-floor windows and about another neighbour who looses his Alsatian dog on any coloured people passing by. So there is a security problem, and it has been made more difficult in people's minds by the proposal to which I have referred to construct a secure-type mental institution.

It is made worse also by the absence of street lighting. This has arisen partly from the failure of the developers of the private estate but partly also from the vandalising of street lights as well as the stealing of the plates in the lamp posts, which has made the place much darker than was intended.

In conclusion, I revert to the fact that it was a Government decision to proceed with this development. It was done in accordance with Government policy at that time, but the Government have never provided the finance to carry the policy through. Moreover, the situation has now been made worse by the change in Government policy under which further resources are given to the exporting authority in Birmingham but there has been a reduction in the resources available to the receiving authority in Hereford and Worcester.

The result is that the inhabitants of the estate are suffering a quite noticeable reduction in their standard of living, quite apart from the sense of isolation and neglect which I have already described.

Therefore, despite the actions of the local councils, which are doing their best to cope with the problem without the resources, and, in particular, the efforts of the councillors, to which I pay tribute, the situation is not improving.

I ask the Minister to look seriously at this whole area and to consider what can be done to improve matters before the development is completed. We are now somewhat less than halfway through. Before we move from slightly under 10,000 to 22,000 inhabitants, the Minister should look at the matter again with a view to providing the necessary facilities. Since this was a Government decision, in pursuance of Government policy, does he not recognise that there is some obligation on the Government to ensure that it is successful, whether by administrative action—he might wish to reconsider the boundary—or by financial action, making the resources available to the receiving councils?

I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that serious consideration will be given to those proposals.

4.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has had this opportunity to raise a subject which I know is of wide interest, namely, that of large housing developments on the edge or near the edge of major cities.

Although most of my remarks will relate to the development of the Frankley Estate in Bromsgrove, I propose to start by looking at some of the general background. I do this particularly given the broader interest shown by the hon. Member in his recent Question.

It is very tempting, but somewhat misleading, to argue that the new inner city initiative, with its concentration on improving economic, housing and social conditions in inner areas, means the end of large peripheral developments such as Frankley. There are two different problems here. First, do we continue to need such overspill estates if full use is to be made of the inner areas through re- habilitation and redevelopment? Secondly, is there a danger that, by concentrating our attention on the inner areas, we may neglect potential problems in the newer estates until they grow to produce new major concentrations of social deprivation?

On the first point, there is no doubt that the prospects for population growth in the Midlands have changed substantially in recent years. Moreover, the major programmes of slum clearance, which displaced so many people from the inner areas of Birmingham in the 1950s and 1960s and which made necessary substantial new housing estates, are now completed and the emphasis has swung to improvement of the existing stock and small-scale redevelopment, both of which avoid uprooting communities in the way that happened in the past. This development is, I think, generally welcomed; it is right that housing should, where possible, be provided in such a way as to keep disturbance to existing local communities to a minimum and to preserve as much of the existing housing stock as is economic and makes good planning sense.

However, the plain fact is that in Birmingham, whatever may be true of some other cities, there simply is not room in the existing built-up area for all those now living there and the expected increase in households if we are to provide for them at acceptable modern standards—of density, of open space, of community facilities.

While we do need to speed up redevelopment and rehabilitation, to widen the range of housing and of tenures in the inner city, all the work done—for instance on the conurbation structure plans and the current regional strategy review—confirms that some overspill will continue whether to peripheral estates or to the free-standing towns beyond.

Turning to the second point, there is a difficult question of balance. The sheer scale and complexity of the problems of the inner areas are such that we must concentrate our efforts there in the immediate future. But I agree that this must not be at the cost of allowing new major centres of deprivation to grow up elsewhere.

I turn now to the issue of Frankley. This is a major development to provide for Birmingham overspill located partly in Birmingham but largely in the adjacent Bromsgrove district of Hereford and Worcester. It has been planned as a largely self-contained community incorporating its own facilities such as community centres, schools, a health centre, churches, shops and public houses, as well as a number of specialist buildings. This was done as a deliberate attempt to avoid the problems experienced with the major peripheral developments of the 1950s and 1960s which lacked integral social facilities and, probably as a result, had difficulties with vandalism, juvenile delinquency, problems of isolation, and so on. Birmingham has also planned a wide variety of different sizes of housing at Frankley to try to encourage a reasonable mixture of people, particularly families and the elderly.

Amongst other things, this should enable elderly people moving from larger to smaller houses to stay in the same area as their younger relatives. Another way in which the Frankley development differs from those of the 1950s and 1960s is that it does not have any of the multi-storey blocks which have proved so difficult, particularly for families with young children and for the elderly. None of the houses or fiats at Frankley goes higher than two storeys. The problem at Frankley is not with this basic plan but that sufficient resources have not yet been found to enable all these facilities to be built and brought into use.

One of the most critical projects is probably the comprehensive school at Holly Hill because, in addition to its education functions, it is intended to meet wider recreational and social needs within the community, particularly for young people. I understand that Hereford and Worcester County Council has, after some delay, found a place for the school in its education programme and that it hopes to have part of the school open by September 1980. I know that this decision followed a successsful local campaign. Discussions about the additional recreational and social facilities are continuing.

The planned health centre at Holly Hill is due to start at the end of this year and be completed by 1980, and in the meantime I gather that Birmingham has been able to come up with an intermediate solution by making two of its houses available as a surgery for local GPs. While shopping facilities at Frankley are still fairly thin, I am told that there will be a substantial improvement by the late summer, when the two local shopping centres now being constructed at Holly Hill and Frogmill are completed. I have looked into the position on a number of problems affecting the estate, including ones raised by the hon. Member.

Until the early part of last year, social security claimants from Frankley had substantial difficulties because they had to travel to the DHSS local office at Kidderminster. I understand that, following discussions between Birmingham and the Department, a solution has now been reached whereby people from the estate can use the local office at Northfield. I also understand that the recent difficulties about the provision of an adequate bus service from Frankley into Birmingham have now been resolved, although I appreciate that fare levels are still higher than for people living within Birmingham.

There are certainly still problems with discretionary bus fares because rather different systems operate in Birmingham and Bromsgrove. I gather that discussions are taking place between the two districts and the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive. It is up to them, not me, to attempt to solve that problem.

I know that the demands for social services and facilities for Frankley have caused difficulties for the local authorities in Hereford and Worcester, given the other calls on resources in their areas. But I also know of the very helpful way they have been involved in discussions with Birmingham to try to tackle these problems and I hope that it will be possible before too long to programme a few more of the key public sector projects. When these facilities have been constructed and the whole estate completed—and it is important to remember that only half the houses have been built at the moment—that will be the time to try to establish the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme. It would certainly be wrong to assume now that Frankley will have similar difficulties to those on some of the large estates of the 1950s and the 1960s.

I understand that the preliminary evidence from Frankley is that, while there are undoubtedly problems, these are considerably less than was the case with Chelmsley Wood at a similar stage of its development. I hope that when Frankley has settled down some of the fears which have been expressed will prove to have been misplaced. It is always too easy in debates like this to concentrate on problems or potential problems and ignore potential successes. On the credit side, the environment at Frankley will be very good and the quality of the housing will be high.

Neither is an inconsiderable point for people moving from substandard or over crowded conditions. Whatever the transitional difficulties of green field developments, they do have the advantage of enabling the whole of an area to be planned comprehensively. The hon. Gentleman knows enough about new towns to know that difficulties that new residents find at an early stage of construction soon disappear. He know that after the mud is cleared away and the gaps are filled in, the community can settle down.

The hon. Gentleman should know that I am the wrong person to be talking about many of the problems that he has raised. I am concerned about the overall picture that he paints of Frankley, but the people who have the power and the resources to tackle the difficulties are mainly the local authorities in the area. I shall not fall into the trap which always awaits Ministers in my Department of seeming to tell local authorities what to spend on what. That is not my business. It is for them to determine their own priorities. I am bound to advise the hon. Gentleman that the solutions to the problems that he has set out lie with the local authorities in the area.

Mr. Miller

I am grateful to the Minister, but may I ask him to appreciate that there was no other means of raising this subject? He was the Minister chosen to reply to the debate. I am concerned that facilities are not being provided in step with the population increase. In particular, the local authorities are not able to provide in the way that he has suggested because they do not have the resources available to them. The Home Office has done nothing for two years about the request of the West Mercia Police Authority for an increase in strength. It is not fair for the Minister to suggest that the remedy lies entirely with the local authorities.

Mr. Barnett

To be fair to myself, I said that these are mostly problems that are the responsibility of the local authorities—the Birmingham City Council, Bromsgrove District Council and the county council, which are all in Conservative hands. The hon. Member is well placed to get round the table with them and discuss ways in which the problems of Frankley can most successfully be tackled. If he has not done so, I hope that he will.

I know that there are problems of resources. That is a problem facing all local authorities. It is important to point out that the cost of providing services for overspill estates such as Frankley is reflected in the needs element of the Hereford and Worcester settlements, through the elements related to population and new dwellings and other elements which depend on the nature of the incoming population—schoolchildren, students and old people. All of those factors count. The hon. Gentleman should take account of that.

I take a pragmatic view of the likely future need for large developments such as Frankley. I wish this new development well. I hope that the new residents will settle down quickly and that all the local authorities will do their best to find solutions to the remaining problems.

Mr. Miller

I am grateful to the Minister for his patience. I have been to see him with the county council to complain about the structure of the calculation for the rate support grant. He has referred to the population increase and the numbers of school children, but he knows perfectly well that these figures are two years out of date and do not reflect adequately the population for which the local authority is trying to provide.

Mr. Barnett

That is not entirely true. In some cases the population figures are out of date, but school children would enter considerably into the calculations in this case, as would new housing. As far as is possible, the needs element takes account of increasing population.

I wish this development well and hope that it succeeds. Inevitably, in a new development of this kind, there are problems, but a development as well planned and well thought out as this can ultimately hope to be a thoroughly pleasant and viable community.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock.