HC Deb 11 March 1998 vol 308 cc511-8 12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

My constituents who live in the district of East Devon have for some time faced the prospect of a new town being built immediately adjacent to the village of Broadclyst, which is quite close to the Exeter city boundary. When the Devon county structure plan first review deposit version was published in 1996, I sent—as the Member of Parliament representing the area—a written submission in response to that plan. In the main, I supported the views of East Devon district council. In my letter to the county environment director in December 1996, I said that my views reflected those of the district council in that I felt that a new town would be highly inappropriate, and I expressed some sympathy with the proposal for a limited village.

We all accept that there must be new housing—I do not approach the debate from the point of view that we do not need new housing. However, I hope that the debate will identify what is appropriate in terms of the number and location of houses. I said in my submission that the decision to build a new town in my constituency should be deferred for five years while a full audit of brown-field sites throughout the county of Devon was conducted. The term "brown-field sites"—which is common parlance these days—refers to disused land that was used for domestic or commercial purposes and can be recycled.

My view remained unchanged in September last year when the examination in public met at county hall for three weeks. I spent three days giving evidence to the public inquiry on behalf of my constituents about the overall number of new houses proposed in the county structure plan for Devon, and specifically about the proposed new town at Broadclyst. I repeated to the inquiry my request for a deferment of the decision to build the town until a full audit of brown-field sites throughout Devon was completed.

The inquiry heard evidence from many representatives, including some from the city of Exeter and from Torbay—I see that the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) are both in their places. Perhaps not surprisingly, the representatives of the two local authorities declared that they had virtually no brown-field sites within their boroughs and that there was no alternative but to begin to encroach on the green-field sites in my constituency.

We must address two key questions when identifying housing need in Devon. The first is the assessment of total future numbers. An imperfect science seems to determine how many houses will be needed well into the future—in this case, we are looking beyond 2011. The Liberal Democrat-controlled county council has used inward migration figures of 7,330 a year to support its claim. In fact, the average over the past seven years has been just 5,000 a year, so there is already a difference of opinion in anticipating housing need.

At the examination in public, all parties around the table spent a great deal of time examining changes in social patterns within the region and discussing why we now needed more, and a greater variety of, housing. The inquiry engaged in constructive discussion, but there is always a thorny issue. Devon is a popular part of the country, where I am fortunate to have lived for 30 years. Other hon. Members will know Devon through their visits to that county. Devon is the sort of place where people from other parts of the country want to live. They often cannot fulfil that ambition until they retire, so Devon is known as a retirement area.

I do not wish the House to suppose for a moment that I am one of those who think that we should "keep those foreigners out" or that I am not receptive to the idea that others would like to enjoy the Devon life style. I do not want anyone to misinterpret the case that I am making. However, there is a difference between natural inward migration by people who choose to live in Devon and what I would describe as an out-and-out marketing campaign by those who have a vested interest in persuading people to move to Devon. As I said at the examination in public, I believe that such action distorts the figures.

The county believes that we must accommodate inward migration of 7,330 a year, but the historic figure is 5,000 a year. The difference equates to about 1,000 homes a year. If we apply the 5,000-a-year formula, we see that we would not need a new town in numerical terms—and certainly not one at Broadclyst. The second factor that comes into play is location. The East Devon district has no indigenous need for new housing on this scale. The location, which is adjacent to the Exeter city border, is an important reason why Broadclyst has been chosen: it is intended to accommodate the growth and overspill of the city of Exeter.

I have every sympathy with Exeter's need for housing. My constituency shares services and facilities supplied by Exeter, including the general hospital, and the city provides employment opportunities. We understand the importance of Exeter to our part of Devon. I am very fond of Exeter: both of my sons were born there, so what more can a mother say? I can pay no greater compliment to the city of Exeter. However, I do not believe that it is in the interests of my constituents in neighbouring East Devon to accommodate Exeter's problems on such a large scale. It is proposed that 3,000 homes be built in the new town to accommodate 8,000 people eventually.

The Liberal Democrat county council and the examination in public have ignored what local people want and the views that they reflect through me, their democratically elected representative. Before the examination in public response was published recently, I was advised by the county council that the lobby groups would not be pleased by the result of the inquiry. I was obliged to inform the council that I am the lobby group in my area, so I have no problem with the Council for the Protection of Rural England or any other lobby group approaching me and saying, "Look at this terrible result from the examination in public". I argued against the new town during that hearing, and I shall continue to lobby against it.

In the Western Morning News on Monday, deputy leader of the town council Rod Ruffle said: The view that I and some others in the group take is that providing two new towns in East Devon and the South Hams"— a second town is planned for Devon— will create less damage to the countryside than expanding existing towns and villages. Let us examine that claim. If he meant that the way forward was to expand on to green-field sites around and within existing towns and villages, he might have a point. However, I and others have called for an independent audit of brown-field or recycled land to identify land suitable to accommodate new houses. If, at the end of such an audit, it was found that those sites would not accommodate a sufficient number, there might be a case for saying that we should consider having a bigger settlement. Areas of land in my constituency would then need to be considered, as would land in other constituencies.

However, that is not what has happened. At the EIP, we heard that Exeter city council had carried out an audit. Indeed, certain developers attended the EIP and said that they had also carried out an audit of brown-field sites. I am asking the Minister for an audit carried out, or certainly scrutinised, by a body that does not have a vested interest in the outcome. Clearly, if developers have their eye on a certain piece of land, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by carrying out an audit that does not really reflect the full potential of brown-field sites elsewhere. I and many of my constituents are not convinced that a proper independent audit to determine potential brown-field sites has been carried out in Exeter or around it—certainly not in the county of Devon.

Surprisingly, and probably for the first time in my life, I found myself agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister, when he said in a recent statement to the House: In future, we shall expect each regional planning conference to make a proper assessment of land availability and set regional targets for the use of recycled land. That has never been done before. It is an important change. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us at the Dispatch Box that that has never been done before and is an important change, it begs the question of what sort of audit was carried out in the evidence to the EIP last September at county hall, Exeter. I welcome that news from the Deputy Prime Minister. He continued: it will sharpen the focus of policy and action on the ground", and that is exactly what this debate is about. He went on to say: Last week, I asked my Department to work with English Partnerships and local government to create a national database of land use, which will give local authorities reliable information on the amount of recycled land available for housing."—[Official Report, 23 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 23.] Clearly, since the Devon county structure plan was laid and we all took part in that examination in public in September, certain things have changed. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to intervene by giving me his support today for my original request. I am asking him to give guidance in cases such as that of Broadclyst, where we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. The county structure plan has been laid, we have had the examination in public and yet a useful policy is about to come forward that could affect the outcome. I repeat my request to the Minister to give guidance and to intervene, and to support what I asked for in 1996, which was a moratorium while the exercise is carried out. When we have examined fully exactly how much brown-field land there is in Devon and whether it is appropriate for the new housing need, a decision can be taken about whether to proceed with a new town.

Many people may think that no real decisions are taken until the democratic process—whereby all those different stages in the county structure plan invite people such as myself and others to participate, to make proposals reflecting our local views and to explain what residents think—is completed. I will, therefore, now turn to the examination in public held at county hall last September. Just after the first deposit version of the county structure plan was laid, a company called Wilcon Homes—

Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)

Surely the plan stems from a planning conference in 1992, when the Conservative party was in control of county hall as well as central Government. I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said, but she is not going back far enough to find the origins of the plan. I hope that the Minister will impose certain duties on Devon to look at more brown-field sites, which could be done. However, the origins of the plan are not as recent as she is leading us to believe.

Mrs. Browning

I am about to read some correspondence from the previous Administration, as I took the matter up with them as well as making my representations to the Minister this morning.

As I was saying, in November 1996, Wilcon Homes put out literature and held a travelling road show to promote "Clyst Hayes". I had never heard of the place, but I have a leaflet here describing it and Clyst Hayes turns out to be the name that the developers had already given the new town. As is evident, this leaflet is not some cheap piece of literature—it is in full colour and glossy.

The road show went round many towns in east Devon, travelling as far away as Sidmouth and Axminster, which may not mean much to people here, but they are some little way from Broadclyst. Wilcon Homes asked people in neighbouring towns whether they wanted a new town at Broadclyst. Of course, they were told that without it, their own towns and villages would be developed further, so it is not surprising that they ticked the yes box in support. That was presented to the EIP as evidence of local support.

I wrote to the then Minister of State, Department of State for the Environment, who replied on 27 January 1997: It would not normally be appropriate for detailed discussions about the merits of a particular site to take place at an examination in public. The need to respect local preferences means that specific proposals for new settlements should normally only be promoted through district wide local plans. If, following the examination, which had yet to take place, the new settlement strategy is retained we are talking broad principles and not specifics— then it would be for the East Devon District Council, as the local planning authority, to consider whether the location proposed by Wilcon Homes is acceptable. However, the EIP was specific. The land in question—Clyst Hayes, the town named by the developers although they had not gone through the full democratic process—is mainly farm land and stretches from Broadclyst station to the A30, where it meets Exeter airport.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter)

Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the farmers who could make much money out of this project is the chairman of one of her local parish councils and was a leading light on the recent Countryside march? Does she not think that a little hypocritical?

Mrs. Browning

I am aware, as I was about to get to that point in my speech, that Wilcon Homes had taken options on the land some period beforehand and said so at the EIP. So the site was not being discussed in general terms. The EIP was site specific. In fact, it was so much so that technical experts were called to give evidence about the noise of ground testing aircraft engines as the proposed land runs up to the perimeter of Exeter airport, where some companies service engines. Exeter airport falls in my constituency, as the hon. Member for Exeter will know.

When it was revealed that the developers had already secured options on the land, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, and that the democratic process of the EIP was taking evidence from people whose businesses could affect the noise distraction for houses on a specific part of that land, I was extremely suspicious. What price democracy if democratically elected representatives such as myself take the trouble to go through the process of the county structure plan, make written submissions, consult constituents and give up three days in September to give evidence on their behalf, only to find that all that has gone on in the background?

The EIP found in favour of the new town—I was not terribly surprised. Moreover, it recommended that east Devon should accommodate 1,500 houses over and above those proposed in the structure plan. Frankly, I hold out little hope in either county hall or the results of the so-called democratic process of the county structure plan review.

Although I have written to the chief executive, again requesting that a moratorium be placed on the decision to build the new town, I would appreciate—especially in the light of the Government's recent announcement—the Minister's help and support, as I do not think that the democratic process has been properly observed. I believe that my constituents, particularly those who live in the Broadclyst area, deserve better.

12.50 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this Adjournment debate, as I know that she has maintained an interest in this subject for a considerable time—indeed, since Devon county council first proposed its strategy for two new communities to help to provide for the county's housing needs. I noted her comments on both her constituency and the adjacent town of Exeter, which I know well. I entirely endorse her view that it is an extremely attractive town—

Mr. Bradshaw

City.

Mr. Raynsford

It is an extremely attractive city—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) is present for this debate.

The debate is very timely, following so closely the publication on 23 February of our paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", to which the hon. Lady referred. The paper sets out the results of our analysis of the system that we inherited for calculating and providing for the country's housing needs. It sets out our strategy for promoting more sustainable patterns of development and for encouraging urban renewal. We want to ensure that, where development is needed outside or adjacent to urban areas, it is sustainable—it must be combined with an active approach to the protection of the countryside.

That differs from the previous system, which has been seen as top-down, inflexible and too rigidly wedded to the principle of predict and provide. Our proposals represent a sustainable, democratic and comprehensive approach to meeting the country's housing needs—which, as the hon. Lady rightly stressed, is an important issue—while respecting the need to protect the countryside.

On the specific subject raised by the hon. Lady, my understanding is that the only proposal currently in the public domain for a new community in east Devon relates to the county council's strategy that was set out in the structure plan. The local planning authority has, as yet, no firm proposal to build a new town at Broadclyst. East Devon district council has not yet progressed its local plan to a point at which specific sites have been identified to accommodate growth in the district to 2011. Moreover, to my knowledge, no application for planning permission to build a new town has yet been submitted to the local planning authority.

I am aware, however, that in 1996, shortly after the Devon structure plan was placed on deposit, Wilcon Homes identified an area of land between Broadclyst railway station and Exeter airport on which it suggested that it would be possible to locate a new settlement of some 3,000 houses to be known as Clyst Hayes. The hon. Lady referred to some of the publicity that was attached to those proposals.

A new community in east Devon is a key element of the county council's strategy for accommodating growth, but the structure plan contains no site-specific locations—indeed, that would not have been appropriate for such a document. All the parties involved in the structure plan process accept that the appropriate place to identify site-specific locations is the local plan, which is to be prepared by the district council.

Mrs. Browning

I hope that the Minister heard even a small portion of the discussions about the site at the EIP.

Mr. Raynsford

I assure the hon. Lady that I shall mention the EIP in a moment.

Proposal N2 of the structure plan states: A new community should be provided for within East Devon District, within the Exeter Area of Economic Activity as shown on the Key Diagram. The new community should include provision for about 3,000 dwellings, associated employment land provision and a range of community and other associated facilities. The proposal also sets out the general criteria to be met before the community could be permitted. Those criteria provide for the community to be located where it can, first, be assimilated into the landscape of the area; secondly, avoid as far as possible the use of significant areas of the best and most versatile agricultural land; thirdly, be related to, but separate from, existing settlements; fourthly, access the Exeter-Waterloo rail line by means of a new railway station; fifthly, be accessible to the high-quality road network and the local highway system; and, sixthly, be developed without adversely affecting the operation of Exeter airport—it should not be affected by unacceptable levels of aircraft noise.

The county proposed to provide in East Devon district some 9,700 new dwellings, of which some 3,500 should be in the main area of economic activity—about 5,600 new dwellings were proposed for Exeter. The Exeter main area of economic activity was identified by the county council as a key location for the future development of the county's economy, which was reflected in the provision for 9,100 dwellings in the area between 1995 and 2011.

The county considered that there was insufficient capacity in existing settlements to meet such provision. It found that expansion on the periphery of Exeter was severely restricted by topography, agricultural land and other physical constraints, that opportunities to expand other settlements in the area were limited, and that the scale of such expansion would in any case be such that the character and setting of an expanded settlement could not be retained.

Mr. Bradshaw

That is the problem—Exeter has expanded to its limits. It is surrounded by lovely green, rolling hills, and further expansion on the periphery would alter the character of the city out of all recognition.

Mr. Raynsford

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point, which highlights the dilemma of trying to ensure that development pressures are accommodated in such a way as to respect the character of the area and the countryside, and to avoid creating an unnecessary urban sprawl that would damage people's enjoyment of the countryside.

Mrs. Browning

I cannot let the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) get away with his comment. Those lovely green, rolling hills on which his constituents look out are all mine.

Mr. Raynsford

I am delighted that there is unanimity across the Chamber on the attractiveness of the countryside in that area, which, as a regular visitor, I entirely endorse.

To meet the identified need, the county believed that a new community offered the only satisfactory and sustainable solution. To accommodate the proposed level of development for the Exeter area, it considered that the new community would need to provide for 3,000 dwellings and land for any associated employment. That provision was considered the minimum at which a new community could achieve some self-sufficiency and support an adequate range of local facilities and services.

The county accepted that new communities represented a major new approach to development in the county. It wanted sustainable development of the highest-quality design; an integrated transport system that would promote the use of modes of transport other than the private car; and development that would minimise not only the need to travel, but waste and pollution.

After the structure plan had been placed on deposit in November 1996, there was a six-week period for objections and representations to be submitted to the county council. A panel was appointed, led by an independent chairman, Professor Graham Shaylor, to conduct the examination in public to which the hon. Lady has referred. The EIP was held between 16 September and 9 October 1997. The panel submitted its report to the county council in January 1998—it was made public shortly afterwards.

A number of key issues were debated at the examination by selected participants with a range of interests—I know that the hon. Lady took a close interest in that process. Relevant discussions included the strategy, the countywide provision for housing and the distribution of development in the Exeter, east Devon and mid-Devon areas. In those discussions, the county council's proposals for the overall level and distribution of housing provision and the proposals for two new communities were debated in considerable depth.

Having heard all the representations to the EIP, the panel concluded that the overall housing provision for the county should be increased, in line with household projections, from 74,500 to 79,000, which was some 4,000 less than the figure that was given in the regional planning guidance for the south-west. The allocation for Exeter city was recommended to be increased by 800 to 6,400.

The panel felt that, in east Devon, there was sufficient scope for new development to be assimilated into the landscape and that the existence of a good road and rail infrastructure would help to ensure that new development was not entirely dependent on the private car. It therefore recommended that housing provision be increased by 1,500 to 11,200.

While the panel supported the concept of a new community east of Exeter, arguments about the specific location were not part of its brief. The panel felt strongly that the strategic importance of this area to the county as a whole, its benefits in locational and economic terms and the high level of unmet need in that part of the county should be considered.

The structure planning authority for Devon currently comprises the county council, along with Dartmoor and Exmoor national park authorities, and, with effect from 1 April, they will be joined by Plymouth and Torbay unitary authorities. Together, they will consider the additional information provided by the examination in public, along with the written objections and representations received, and decide whether a new community is the most sustainable solution to provide for the housing needs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. We now come to the next Adjournment debate.