HC Deb 01 December 1981 vol 14 cc201-10

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr David Hunt.]

Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)

I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating this debate and for the Minister's presence tonight, not least because this is the second time within hours that he has had the privilege of appearing at the Dispatch Box.

The Minister knows that we are discussing an issue of the greatest concern to my constituency, which is disturbing all those who wish to prevent further unnecessary damage to the environment and the quality of life in south Buckinghamshire, apart from the massive waste of public resources. He knows that the concern arises from the proposals that the figures in the Buckinghamshire structure plan should be increased to provide for additional population and housing growth in the south of the county.

The county council has been directed to submit plans before 31 December to accommodate 7,500 more people, which means 2,700 more houses than were allowed for in the original plan.

The proposal seems to be the brainchild of officials in the Department of the Environment. In my fairly long experience of Whitehall, it is one of the most extraordinary phenomena that I have come across. It has survived against changes of Government, changes in the Secretary of State for the Environment, and seemingly against all the odds. When Mr. Lloyd Jones and his colleagues made a study of the matter in 1979 and made the proposals on which the present directive is based in 1978, the case they made then was considered by many—I think with great justification—to be thin and unconvincing. I find it difficult to understand why the gentlemen concerned were moved to recommend such a major change in a plan which had been thoroughly considered by all the local authorities, and with a great deal of public participation over many years.

However, it happened, and the present Secretary of State was persuaded to accept their increased figure. It is of considerable significance to note that when he accepted the recommendation to alter the projected population figures, his finding was that he would not alter the figures for the districts concerned in south Buckinghamshire. The Minister knows that I have written to him and supported representations to the Department on many occasions over the past two years. When the Minister wrote to me on 7 May this year, he referred to the Secretary of State's failure to adopt this part of the recommendation of the examining panel because the Secretary of State lacked sufficient information to enable him to do so. I am not in the least surprised, because such information was clearly not available to the Secretary of State when he made his decision in December 1979. Even more clearly, that information is not available today. The case which was so unconvincing when put again in 1977, re-run in 1978 and again in 1979, is today totally without validity. That is because it rests on two propositions. The first is that there would be a significant growth in the population in south Buckinghamshire over the period being considered—up to 1991. The second is that employers would continue to demand more and more workers in the area. That was the employment situation fundamentally in the Wycombe and Slough districts and at Heathrow. Considering the two general propositions, I am convinced that we shall quickly see—the Minister will find it difficult to disagree with this—that the proposition falls to the ground. In considering population, we must consider the south of Buckinghamshire. I am particularly concerned with the population projections of the Wycombe district. The population projections of Buckinghamshire as a whole are significantly affected by the prospects for Milton Keynes. It is neither profitable nor relevant to consider in the debate what may or may not happen in Milton Keynes. It is relevant to consider what will happen in south Buckinghamshire as a whole.

The review panel assumed that the figures would show, over the period being discussed, an increase in the south Buckinghamshire population. The latest figures available show many things which falsify the assumptions and projections of the review panel. There have been clear signs and indications that the population decline in south Buckinghamshire will continue. For example, I refer the Minister to the birth rate figures which are available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Using an index of 100 per cent. for 1971 it can be seen—referring to the three southern districts of the county: Wycombe, South Buckinghamshire and Chiltern—that for the rest of the decade there was a dip from 93 per cent. in 1972 to 72 per cent. in 1976. In 1977 it was 73 per cent. of the 1971 birth rate. I apologise to the House because, in my fairly brief remarks, I shall need to inflict a number of figures on hon. Members. The nature of the subject I seek to deal with makes that inevitable.

The bitter irony is that in the year when the review panel was reaching its conclusions about the remorseless growth of population in south Buckinghamshire, the people of south Buckinghamshire were not meeting their stak-hanovite norms and producing the children that the planners wanted them to produce. They were producing only about 73 per cent. of the birth rate that had obtained in the previous decade. Therefore, the prospect is that over the coming years the population of the south Buckinghamshire district will decline, and the other two districts, Wycombe and Chiltern, will have virtually a stable population.

The structure plan suggested that in 1981 the population of the Wycombe district would be between 159,000 and 166,000. The present population is 156,000–10,000 fewer than the optimum forecast in the plan a few years ago. The suggested figure for 1986 was between 163,000 and 171,000 people in the Wycombe district. According to the latest figures, there are likely to be between 150,000 and 154,000 people. Therefore, the whole case, inasmuch as it is based on population growth, has exploded already.

I turn to the other plank on which this very shaky edifice has been built—the employment prospects not only in Wycombe but in Slough and Heathrow. I say at once that I would not support for one moment anything which remotely threatened the economic prosperity of Wycombe or south Buckinghamshire, or of any part of the region. I would modestly claim that in the three and a half years in which I have had the privilege of representing the Wycombe district, I have come to know the industries there very well. I am confident that what the county council and the local authorities supporting it propose in the structure plan will not put artifical restraints on the industries of Wycome district; on the contrary, it will greatly strengthen them.

What worries me is that if, by any awful chance, the proposals as they now stand in their revised form were to go through, the increased burdens which would be placed on the district—and which would inevitably show in the rates—would, far from increasing employment, greatly decrease employment in the area.

When the review panel conducted its studies there was in the Wycombe area pressure from the various manufacturers' associations for additional housing. The fundamental position has now changed, and that will come as no surprise to any hon. Member.

In November 1979, there was 2.1 per cent. unemployment in the Wycombe district. In September of this year there was 6.6 per cent. unemployment. In Slough—which is meant to be the feeder area for the additional growth proposed in Wycombe or in south Buckinghamshire generally—there was 1.9 per cent. unemployment in November 1979. In September of this year it was 7.1 per cent. There is, therefore, a great deal of slack to be taken up in that regard.

I would be the last to sugest that employment prospects will not improve but, knowing the resilience and enterprise of the local industries, my view is that they will be moving very much up-market towards the higher value added area. If they show the same sort of enterprise as they have shown over the last 20 or 25 years, they will change their products and techniques in significant ways. It is clear, therefore, that we shall not be able to look to them for really large increases in the labour force. That in a sense matches what I said earlier about the population projections.

The third part of the employment section of the package put together by the review panel concerned Heathrow. I could weary the House with quotations about employment prospects, but the general theme in the assessment was that Heathrow would continue to increase its labour force. As we now know so well, that simply is not the case. British Airways have set in hand a redundancy programme which may affect about 9,000 people. Pan-Am and other airlines are going through the same process.

I have here a letter from the British Airports Authority, dated 2 November 1981, which confirms that the figure of 52,000 people employed at Heathrow is being reduced because of the policies of various companies. The gentleman who signs the letter, Mr. Duncan, says: I cannot foresee any real change in the present level of staff at the airport. I have had a number of conversations with those involved at very senior levels at Heathrow in British Airways and other airlines. It is clear that the peak employment figure was reached somewhere around 1980, and that, whatever happens about a fifth terminal at Heathrow, the best expectation in terms of employment is that by 1990–91 the figure might be back at that of 1980.

Many of the people at present working at Heathrow reside in the south Buckinghamshire area, so many of them are my constituents. Here, too, there is potential slack in the employment market. I am confident that it will be taken up, but it is a significant degree of slack. The population figures in the structure plan, as I have said, are highly questionable. When we consider also what has happened to employment prospects, it is clear that there is no case for the additional growth that has been proposed.

In the structure plan as worked out by the local authorities, with the appropriate public consultation, some growth is already envisaged. There is no question of a freeze or standstill. We referred to the three southern districts of Buckinghamshire. At present the Chiltern district has 34,000 houses and the county proposes an increase of 1,800. In the south Buckinghamshire district there are 23,000 houses and the county proposes an increase of 1,200 houses. In Wycombe district there are at present 55,000 houses with an increase proposed by the county of 3,700, which is about 7 per cent.

If one adds to the points that I have already made the other factors that will take effect during the years, clearly the case will continue, as the snowball on the stove to melt away. We should consider the effects of the Rent Act 1974, which the Government had the wisdom to introduce and also their policy on council house sales. Those measures will mean that more and more accommodation will become available within existing buildings.

Another development is what has happened in the Aylesbury district, where about 2,000 more houses than provided for in the structure plan have already been built. The development in Berkshire, which is relevant to employment in Slough and Heathrow, must be considered in its relevance to the housing requirements of south Buckinghamshire.

The final point deals with Milton Keynes, which is a subject on which I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that everyone in Buckinghamshire feels strongly. They contributed so much of their rates to the development of Slough and then lost Slough to Berkshire. Now in Buckinghamshire we seem to bear a heavy burden for the development of Milton Keynes. Some residents resent that more strongly than others, but there is a strong feeling that it is a massive investment—the last available Government figure was about £600 million—intended for new industries. It is not a question whether an additional workshop can be created in Wycombe. We are talking about significant industrial growth in Milton Keynes, which is in the centre of Britain and meant to be well supplied with communication facilities. Many miles of north Buckinghamshire, which I knew well as a boy, will be carved out to become the new industrial city.

I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with the reduced projections for Milton Keynes. He may or may not regret that reduction, but it calls into question the enormous infrastructure that has been created already and the vast sums that have been spent. Surely the very last thing that we should do is anything that would increase the reduction in the prospects and growth rate of Milton Keynes.

My hon. Friend the Minister will accept that, by now, the snowball has disappeared, but somehow in the bureaucratic way it lingers on in the form of a proposition that would involve—infilling in High Wycombe is a matter of considerable debate—extremely serious erosion of one of the most beautiful areas of Britain—the Chilterns. It is officially listed as an area of outstanding natural beauty and is in the green belt. The proposal would mean that the character of High Wycombe and the surrounding townships and villages would be changed even more than it is now. We should be faced with yet another urban sprawl. If the planning process at the Department of the Environment has any responsibility, it must be to prevent further damage to our environment in that way.

More than the damage to the environment, what concerns me, my constituents and many people in Buckinghamshire is the incredible expenditure of public resources that would be at stake should the proposition continue. Building houses entails many different sorts of work, such as the whole infrastructure of new roads, water provision and sewers. Expenditure on that would be the sort of waste to which I referred earlier in my speech. It would inevitably, as well as destroying what is left of the attraction of that part of the Chilterns, rob Britain of some high grade agricultural land.

I have no expectation that my hon. Friend, wise and percipient man though he is, will, when I sit down, shout Eureka, I accept all that you say. However, I move from my belief in his wisdom and percipience to the conclusion that, having heard the case, he will return to the Department of the Environment and re-examine the files. I recognise that we are at a difficult stage in the planning process, but it has been forced on the people of Buckinghamshire by the Department. What has been forced by the Department can be removed by it. I do not believe that bureaucratic juggernauts can never be stopped. I know that it is difficult and requires courage and Ministers who are prepared to consider all the facts, I have every confidence that my hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are the sort of people who will do precisely that.

8.28 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on the vigour and cogency with which he presented his case about the vexed problems of the adjustment to be made to the Buckinghamshire structure plan. I find it difficult to reply with the generosity and accuracy that I would wish. We are discussing a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be called upon to consider in his quasi-judicial capacity, and I must neither prejudice that consideration nor appear to do so.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it remiss of me if I seek to show that there are counter-arguments to those which he advanced. It is, therefore, appropriate that all the matters should be considered under the formal statutory procedures. I believe that he is aware that the Buckinghamshire county council intends shortly to submit its proposals for alteration to the structure plan.

My hon. Friend has put forward strong arguments about the birth rate, the changes in the unemployment position, the growth at Heathrow, housing developments and the question of Milton Keynes—all of which, in his view, add up to a different package under which the review of housing capacity in his part of Buckinghamshire should be undertaken. My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that structure plans inevitably mean dealing with a fairly long projection, during which there would be a number of short-term fluctuations in fairly important indicators. In arriving at a judgment we must, at any given point, use the best possible information and statistical base. Eventually the decision whether an absolute given number of houses should be allocated to certain areas must be made by planning authorities. Whether such decisions result in houses being built is another matter. That may be substantially influenced by the current market and the projections given by house builders. We are discussing a long-term context in which various other planning mechanisms will change. My hon. Friend will not expect me to be entirely persuaded that short-term changes in some indices necessarily invalidate the procedure that must be followed.

When the Secretary of State approved the county structure plan in December 1979 he had the benefit of the report by the panel which, under an independent chairman, had conducted an examination of the plan in public. The panel recommended, among other things, that there should be increased provision for housing in the southern part of the county—that is, in the districts of Wycombe, Chiltern and south Buckinghamshire—to meet essentially local requirements.

My right hon. Friend accepted that recommendation, but did not modify the plan because he did not have sufficient information to enable him to apportion the increase appropriately among the districts concerned. For that reason he directed the county council to prepare proposals for alteration of the plan for submission to him not later than the end of this year. The Government expect the council to meet the deadline.

The direction requires the county council to provide for the accommodation of 7,500 more people in south Buckinghamshire in the period up to 1991—that is, 7,500 in addition to those already provided for in the approved plan.

The broad strategy of the plan is still to restrain development in the southern part of the county, which includes an important part of the Metropolitan green belt and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. Urban growth is in general to be steered to selected areas elsewhere in the county. That strategy was accepted, and still stands. There was general agreement that the green belt should be maintained and the area of outstanding natural beauty protected. But those desirable restraint policies have their effect on the provision of housing in the area.

The plan stated that land available for building development in south Buckinghamshire would be insufficient to meet all local needs, even if building took place at higher densities than in the recent past. The plan envisaged that the shortfall would be made good in the growth area to the north of the county—that is, Milton Keynes—and in strategic plan for the south east area No. 8, that is, in the Reading, Wokingham, Aldershot and Basingstoke area. Local industrial, commercial and house building interests, as well as the Berkshire county council and Slough borough council, argued that the county council should make provision in south Buckinghamshire for more of its own needs. Local industry was especially concerned about the shortage of houses for key workers.

The panel which conducted the examination in public, under the independent chairman, was sympathetic to these arguments and linked the provision of housing with the strength of the local economy and the efficiency of public services. It thought it wrong to look at employment in south Buckinghamshire in isolation from that at the Slough trading estate and Heathrow airport. Information before the panel showed that many workers travelled from their homes in south Buckinghamshire to jobs at Slough and Heathrow. Thus, it would be right to have regard to these factors in looking at local requirements.

The panel accepted that, given the constraints of the green belt and the Chilterns AONB, it would not be possible to meet all the needs of south Buckinghamshire within that area; but it felt that a greater proportion of the need should be met. At the examination in public, the county council had given details of a survey carried out in 1977 which showed that in south Buckinghamshire there was land available for some 16,700 dwellings—11,000 on land already having planning permission or positively identified as suitable for housing, and the rest on land which, in light of previous experience, might be expected to become available. The housing provision in the plan as approved was, taking the mid point of the range, some 13,200 houses in the period 1976 to 1991.

There was, therefore, scope for provision of additional dwellings on land which the county council thought would be available. On the basis of the occupancy rate employed in the plan, the figure of 7,500 people, as my hon. Friend says, would require about 2,700 dwellings. This means that the total additional provision in south Buckinghamshire for the period 1976 to 1991 would amount to about 16,000 dwellings, of which, I understand, 7,400 have already been completed. Thus there would be a provision for the next 10 years of about 8,600 dwellings.

So the aim of the direction was to ensure that a larger proportion of the housing need in south Buckinghamshire, for people working there or in neighbouring areas, should be met within the area itself; and if housing demand generated by local industry proved to be less than was envisaged, then more houses would be available for workers at Slough and Heathrow.

I readily admit—my hon. Friend has been eloquent about this—that there have been some changes since the direction was issued in December 1979. It is true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that official population projections for the South-East outside Greater London have been revised downwards to take account of evidence of a reducing outflow of people from Greater London, but the scale and direction of migration in the region is subject to considerable uncertainty. In particular, the way in which south Buckinghamshire fits into the wider regional picture is far from clear. The Registrar General's mid-year estimates suggest that the area has been losing population by net outward migration during the past decade. It seemed that the outflow continued while the inflow was decreasing. However, the preliminary results of the census raise doubts on this view. I understand that they suggest that the Registrar General's mid-year estimates for Chiltern and Wycombe districts may have been too low.

The point that I made initially about these indices is that it is notoriously difficult to estimate the future population of an area with any certainty in the short term when there are constant fluctuations in the trends. In addition, and very importantly, as my hon. Friend will know, population forecasts for relatively small areas such as districts are difficult, and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not produce forecasts below county level. It would, therefore, be misleading to make confident statements about demographic trends in south Buckinghamshire—or anywhere else, for that matter—until detailed results of this year's census have been published. Publication of the analysis at local level is, I understand, to begin next autumn.

The southern part of the county, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been affected by the recession. My hon. Friend gave the unemployment rates. These are extremely high in relation to historic levels in areas such as Wycombe or Slough but are clearly not rates comparable with those in many of the substantially depressed areas of the country as a whole. Unemployment rates remain well below the national average and the economy of the area is relatively buoyant.

The area looks set to play a valuable role in the recovery. There is evidence that firms are retaining their most skilled workers and as the recovery gets under way shortage of skilled labour is likely to become a problem once again. If that is so, the increased provision of houses envisaged in the direction will be welcomed by employers in the area. As I have indicated, there is also the demand for housing for employees at Heathrow but that was not a primary reason for the direction, although it was a consideration.

Mr. Whitney

On the question of housing for industry, the deputy director of the South Bucks and East Berks. chamber of commerce and industry whose area covers Slough and Wycombe, writing on 22 October, said that it would be virtually impossible for any firm to predict, in the current climate, what their workforce levels will be next year, let alone in 1991". There is so much slack in the general work force figures, allowing for the original growth projected, that it will easily encompass what is needed by industry.

Mr. Shaw

I note what my hon. Friend says. A statement such as that made by the chamber of commerce must be taken as important evidence. My hon. Friend will agree, I think, that the changes in the unemployment position have come about in a relatively short period. I think he will also agree that the scale of industries established within the area to which south Buckinghamshire has always given domestic provision are likely to be affected over a short time either for better or worse. I understand that no company would willingly put its hand on its heart and project its requirements with accuracy.

Trends of this nature that clearly have reflected the national economic recession are not of such a scale in terms of breadth of change that they may not be equally corrected over a relatively short term. Our intention is to seek to provide a context over a decade or so of planning provision. In the context of 10 years or more, we may be dealing with a different order of projections than that reflecting the latest information on the results of the current deep recession.

Heathrow featured in my hon. Friend's remarks. The airport is now operating close to its existing capacity for handling 30 million passengers a year. As my hon. Friend knows, the fourth terminal that is under construction will provide additional capacity and ease the constraint on traffic growth by about 1985. It is not possible to be precise about the future increase in employment. I accept that the planning inquiry into the fourth terminal was held several years ago. The inspector at the inquiry thought that employment might rise from the figure of 54,000 to between 58,700 and 65,000 by 1987. This will obviously involve a number of factors such as improvements in productivity and reduction in staffing levels planned by British Airways, the main employer, but those were the figures used at the time in relation to the potential increase in employment that the planning development might bring.

I am prepared to say to my hon. Friend that the figures issued then may be revised substantially today. We shall have to take into account the consequential use of the fourth terminal and the number of people likely to be employed within the complex as a whole when the terminal becomes operational.

It is important to bear in mind, as I said before, the fact that we are trying to devise policies for 10 to 15 years ahead. In the case of the Buckinghamshire plan, we are concerned with the period up to 1991. Our plans have to be prepared in the light of the most reliable information about trends, not necessarily about information which deals with short-term changes.

This is not a matter on which we wish to prejudge the issues here tonight, but I do not believe that the weight of evidence so far adduced would justify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in withdrawing the direction. Our debate this evening suggests that there are matters concerning the future of south Buckinghamshire which need to be looked at carefully. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that what he has said tonight, and the trends and figures that he has given, as well as the issues which I have illustrated such as the position of Heathrow and the trends of employment there, will all be carefully weighed as and when the decision-making process moves on. The formal procedures will be gone through once the county council has submitted its proposals for alterations to the plan.

Under the town and country planning legislation, the county planning authority will advertise its submission. Following the advertisement, there will be a period of six weeks during which objections and representations may be made to the Secretary of State. All concerned will then have the opportunity to express their views either for or against the proposals. From what my hon. Friend has said, it is clear which side he is on. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully whether to have an examination in public on the issue. However, whether or not there is to be an examination in public, we shall consider all the proposals fully and objectively, together with all the representations that we receive, before arriving at a decision on the plan.

I fully understand the reasons which led my hon. Friend to raise this matter on the Adjournment. We shall soon be at the next phase of the statutory consultation process, which allows others to lodge their objections to these proposals. All that my hon. Friend said will be added to the evidence we have, and then we shall reach our final decision. We are concerned about the long-term establishment of those policies which are consistent with the structure plan's remit and which result in a context which is appropriate for housing and industrial development and for the preservation of those portions of south Buckinghamshire to which my hon. Friend referred.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this issue, and I am grateful to him for the manner in which he did so. I assure him that everything that he said will be fully taken into account in our further discussions.