Housing (Hampshire) (Hansard, 19 July 1995)

§ Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West)

I thank the Minister for remaining at this late hour because I want to raise the matter of housing in Hampshire, principally because of the widespread and continuing concern in my constituency about the housing plans of Hampshire county council for 2001 to 2011. The county plan envisages 48,000 extra houses, which the county claims are required to meet need arising within the county, mainly because of the welcome fact that people are living longer and the unwelcome fact of an increase in the divorce rate, involving the division of households.

I do not want to make a party point, but I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that since political control of Hampshire county council changed, there seems to have been a sea change in attitude. The previous Conservative-controlled county council resisted the figures offered by SERPLAN—the south-east regional plan—covering the period ending 2001. Now the county seems gung-ho for higher numbers.

There are, however, new factors which should in some measure limit the need for so many new houses. First, there are approximately 26,000 empty houses in the county, many in military establishments. The Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 27 June, at column 689, plans to sell off surplus empty houses within six months of them becoming vacant. I warmly welcome that and congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Ministers on bringing forward the proposal. It should make an unexpected addition to the number of houses available in the county.

Secondly, the Labour party's abandonment of its threats against shorthold tenancies means that many more landlords can now feel reassured that they can get repossession if needed, without a political risk if there were to be a change of Government. This should encourage the owners of empty private accommodation to let it, knowing that if they need to, they can get it back.

Thirdly, I was delighted that the Secretary of State announced help for the Empty Homes Agency, which helps local authorities with schemes to secure the use of previously empty houses. These three measures should shrink that total of 26,000 empty properties significantly. It is little known, but there is an important allowance that provides encouragement to people to let a spare room to a lodger. Up to £3,250 can be charged, and that income is entirely free from income tax. May I encourage the Minister to take this concession off the secret list and publicise it widely? It has considerable potential for increasing the availability of accommodation for those in need.

There are factors which bear on the overall figures of housing needed in Hampshire. For example, the proposed concentration of new housing in northern Hampshire that is planned for Basingstoke and Andover. That development is concentrated on the northern part of the Test valley. The area is due to have 3,700 houses completed by 2001. By March this year, only 699 had been built. No one believes that 3,000 houses will be built in this area by 2001.

1787 More land has been allocated to that area under the existing plan than is needed. I shall deal with the reasons for that, but the same reasons will continue to apply. That indicates that too much land is to be allocated for the period between 2001 and 2011 in this part of the county. There are important and serious side-effects from this allocation of land. If developers have a choice between urban renewal and a green-field site, they will choose what is for them the lower cost option of the green-field site.

The Government have a target that half of all new housing should be built in re-used sites. But if there is an excess of green-field sites on offer, that urban renewal will not take place. I make a plea to the Minister to give a lead. He must encourage not just demolition and rebuild in urban areas or infill building—building a second house in a garden—but the division of existing houses to cater for smaller households.

It is no use providing additional houses in one part of the county to meet a demand which arises at the other end of the county. There is no way in which Andover and the northern Test valley will generate the demand for the numbers envisaged in the proposed county plan. It is self-evident that extra households generated in the north-east of the county will not move some 20 or 30 miles west. So we shall have no pressure for urban renewal when there is an excess of green-field sites on offer. A new settlement further east—preferably with a rail connection—would be a more effective way of meeting the demand that will arise in that area.

Modern planning is based on the concept of people living near to their employment or near to a rail link. That employment—in Andover's economy—is good, although it is less buoyant than in Basingstoke. We still have more than 200,000 sq ft of empty industrial buildings, which reinforces the indication that new housing on the scale suggested for Andover is excessive and wrongly placed.

Finally, I turn to the environment, that most precious heritage that we have received and which we have a duty to pass on to future generations with the minimum of damage. We have north of Andover some particularly attractive villages. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is in the Chamber, lives at Tangley, but I was referring particularly to the villages immediately adjacent to the north of Andover—Penton Mewsey, Little London, Picket Piece and Smannell. They lie at the edge of an area of high landscape value, and it has always been understood and entrenched in the Test valley plan that there should be a strategic gap between these villages and the encroachment of Andover town. Alas, the gaps have been whittled away to next to nothing, and the green lungs of the estates of northern Andover and Charlton have been moved further away. I recognise the limit of the Minister's powers in relation to the plans of Hampshire county council from 2000 to 2011, but I hope that the county will rethink this part of its proposals and that such action will be endorsed by my hon. Friend the Minister.

There is another matter about which my hon. Friend can do something. I refer to research conducted by Leicester university on the housing needs of elderly people in rural areas. Retired people account for some 30 per cent. of rural households, and a substantial proportion have been living in rural areas for more than 20 years. Many, as they get 1788 older, will welcome the availability of sheltered accommodation; but very few want to move to such accommodation in towns or urban areas.

The answer lies in using the planning system to give those people what they want, which is sheltered accommodation in rural villages. There seems to be a planning policy vacuum. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate this opportunity to release family-sized rural housing for the younger generation. Perhaps he would like to discuss the matter with some of the housing associations that specialise in such issues: he might find it well worth talking to the English Courtyard association, a non-profit-making organisation, in view of its extensive research into the opportunity to help to deal with the housing needs of people in rural areas.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for raising an important subject. Experience shows that he is not the only person who is concerned about it; housing provision in structure plans always seems to be contentious in one way or another, both with regard to the amount of provision to be made and, more particularly, with regard to the location of new housing. Those who are likely to be affected directly by housing development may not be aware of, or may doubt, the need for such development.

My hon. Friend mentioned four ways of using vacant properties, and of making greater use of properties that are not fully used. They are no secret. I was well aware of the one with which he was particularly concerned some time ago; in fact it has been taken up, particularly in urban areas. I shall check the research done by specialist housing associations. I was very aware of those associations when I wore my previous hat; they have been very useful, and have provided opportunities in both rural and urban areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ensure that we have taken those points into account in the rural White Paper.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which reflects the anxieties of many of his constituents. They arise from the proposals outlined in Hampshire county council's consultation document, "Hampshire 2011", which reviews the Hampshire county structure plan. It identifies four areas of the county as the principal locations for major new housing development in the period up to the year 2011.

It would, I think, be useful for me to touch on the reasoning behind the figures, and the opportunities for protest and the making of adjustments. First, it is necessary for the county council to review the structure plan. The present plan, which was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at the end of 1993, makes provision for development only up to the year 2001. That means that there is uncertainty about the planning strategy for Hampshire after 2001. If the plan-led system is to operate successfully in Hampshire, there needs to be a clear, up-to-date strategic planning framework for the necessary development over a reasonably long time scale, as I believe that my hon. Friend accepts.

The starting point for the county council, in determining the level of housing and other provision to make in its structure plan, is the Government's Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, nicknamed RPG9, published in March 1994. The guidance covers the period 1991 to the 1789 year 2006, and sets out indicative figures for the level of housing provision for Hampshire. That is given as 6,133 new houses per annum over the guidance period.

The calculation of the regional guidance housing requirement starts with my Department's household projections, which in turn derive from forecasts of the number of people likely to be living in the region during the period in question. The calculations made by my Department, in consultation with county councils, take into account such factors as the rate at which people are expected to form households, and social changes—which were recognised with what I would describe as a black look by my hon. Friend. There is a trend towards smaller houses. To be fair, the greatest trend is in the years from age 40 to demise, so it may not necessarily be a result of the divorce changes that my hon. Friend suggests. I wondered for a moment whether he was going to suggest that the county council had a hand in that, but he resisted it.

The level of housing currently proposed for Hampshire in the regional guidance reflects the need arising primarily from natural population growth in the county and is therefore largely aimed at accommodating the population already in Hampshire, plus their children. The household projections form the basis for assessing the total number of dwellings that will be needed in the region, and county councils are able to contribute to the process through SERPLAN.

Once there is a figure for the housing requirement, we ask SERPLAN to advise on how that requirement should be distributed throughout the region. We also take account of local opinions about the desirable balance between development and restraint. That was emphasised by my hon. Friend. We consider such matters as environmental constraints and the need to balance housing growth with the provision of jobs and services, in addition to market and economic demands and the broad aims of regional strategy.

All that shows that the housing requirement that county councils are asked to consider is neither an arbitrary figure imposed on them nor a matter of meeting unconstrained demand. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we do emphasise that the Government are firmly committed to the preservation of the countryside—obviously a matter of great importance, as emphasised by my hon. Friend.

We shall continue to emphasise the importance of making the best use of urban land for new development. When new land for development has to be found, local planning authorities must try to ensure that it is accommodated in ways that are sustainable and do not conflict seriously with the objectives of protecting and enhancing the countryside.

That is the process on which Hampshire county council is now embarked through the review of the county structure plan. In reviewing the plan, the county council needs to have regard to the regional guidance and also to other Government planning policy guidance set out in the planning policy guidance notes, but it will have its own opinions and will need also to take account of local opinions about appropriate locations for development.

The county council's initial consultation document has indicated what it considers to be the level of housing needed in the county up to the year 2011 and the way in which that can be best provided. At the same time, it must safeguard important environmental and other constraints. Those who disagree with the proposed strategy have been able to make their comments to the county council. The county council 1790 is now considering those comments and preparing a full consultation draft plan, which, I understand, is expected to be published in October. I suggest that a copy of today's Hansard may not do the council any harm.

When that draft is published, my hon. Friend and his constituents will have a full opportunity to make comments to the county council before the council makes its final proposals in the formal deposited draft plan, which is expected to be in spring 1996. At that stage, anyone who remains uneasy about the proposals will be able to make formal objections to the county council.

Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is no longer required to approve county structure plans, as those are now adopted by the county councils in the same way that the district councils adopt local plans, the Department will carry out a careful scrutiny of the structure plan proposals to ensure that they are broadly in line with Government policy guidance.

As well as considering the overall levels of development proposed, we shall want to see how far the strategy and proposals for the main areas of development reflect the principles in PPG13 for sustainable development, and especially the way in which it is proposed that major development will be located in relation to existing or proposed new public transport infrastructure, so that reliance on the private car can be minimised. I emphasise the importance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches to that aspect of planning land use.

In addition to consultations that I have already mentioned, at the first draft and deposit draft stages there will be discussion of the key issues at what is called an examination in public. There will also be an opportunity for comment to be made at the modifications stage of the process, when the county council publishes the modifications it proposes to make to the plan in the light of any recommendations made by the examination in public panel. Those concerned about the proposals at any stage of the plan can take advantage of all of those opportunities for constructive comment to make sure that their points of concern are put to the county council.

I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend that there is a proper process and that there will be an opportunity to influence the figures and the location of future developments. There will also be ample opportunity to ensure that the points that he raised tonight and his constituent's concerns are fully aired and considered.