§ 1 pm
§ Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)I am pleased to be able to introduce today's debate on housing projections for Gloucestershire, a subject that has occupied much of my time since I was elected almost two years ago. My postbag contains many letters from constituents who are concerned about protecting not only the villages and the areas where they live, but the entire county. They are not NIMBYs, but are genuinely concerned about ensuring that we pass on to our children at least some, and preferably most, of the beautiful countryside that we have inherited. We had the privilege of inheriting the countryside and we have no right to deny future generations such enjoyment and quality of life.
Let me make it clear at the outset that, in line with most Adjournment debates, I do not intend to make today's debate party political. I am not interested in scoring political points by arguing about which party wishes to build fewest houses or can boast the largest area of green belt. However, I shall first highlight some of the contradictions between the policies espoused by the Government and their actions and those of their inspector in respect of Gloucestershire. Secondly, I shall describe the nonsensical process that still occupies Gloucestershire county council and the inspector in attempting to agree a structure plan; and thirdly, 1 shall describe the effect that building a large number of houses in Gloucestershire will have on the environment and the countryside there.
I shall start with the contradictions. On 3 February this year, the Government tabled an amendment to a motion in the House. It was in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government emphasised their determination to protect the countryside and spoke of
the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including Green Belts".Yet in Gloucestershire, the Government inspector, in his examination-in-public report on the county's structure plan, actually promoted the idea of building in the green belt.The Government amendment also spoke of
the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside".It is poor English, I know, but even worse, the same Government inspector promoted the idea of a new settlement in the open countryside that the Government said they wanted to protect.Paragraph 63 of the Government's draft planning policy guidance, PPG3, states:
The Government is not against new settlements".So on the one hand, the Government boast of their commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside, yet on the other, they say that they are not against new settlements. Where do the Government think that those new settlements will be built if not in the open countryside? Where does the Government inspector think that the proposed new settlement in my constituency in Gloucestershire will be built if not in the open countryside?Furthermore, in the Government amendment and in the new PPG3, the Government spoke of promoting development in existing towns and cities and building 190 60 per cent. of future houses on brown-field land, but what happens in areas with very little brown-field land such as Gloucestershire? Do the Government then approve building on green-belt land, on green fields and in the open countryside? What are the Government's policies in those cases? I would suggest that more clarification is needed. So too is a reappraisal by the Government inspector following his EIP report in Gloucestershire.
Gloucestershire county council's structure plan proposed building 50,000 houses by 2011. That meant 9,100 new houses in my Tewkesbury constituency. The Government inspector considered the structure plan and then—some would say led by developers—proposed 55,000 houses for the county. Due to his muddled thinking, that would mean 12,000 extra houses in Tewkesbury. How can that increase be justified? How can it be right when the area has so few brown-field sites? In writing his report, was the inspector—and the Government office for the south-west—not aware of the imminent publication of the revised household projections, which suggested that the south-west will require 49,000 fewer houses than was originally predicted? If so, why did he then propose 5,000 more houses for Gloucestershire?
The county wanted 50,000 houses, the inspector wanted 55,000 and the county council is considering the matter further. It has already put 100 modifications to the structure plan to public consultation and has suggested to the public that 53,000 is the right figure. I heard this morning that that figure is being amended to 50,000. What a complete farce. The problem is that despite the consultations, the people who live in Gloucestershire—the electorate—actually have a very limited say on the matter because the inspector and the Secretary of State have the power to overturn the decisions made by the democratically elected councillors and to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people who live in the area.
In other words, there is a gaping democratic deficit in the whole planning process. In addition, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been wasted in the course of the process in Gloucestershire—and it is nowhere near finished.
I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State use his powers wisely. If he did, he would properly educate his inspectors before sending them out into the country and allowing them to contradict the very policies that the Government are proposing. He would explain the meaning of sustainable development to his inspectors and he would ensure that a vast amount of taxpayers' money was not wasted on smokescreen planning processes. I would also suggest that the Secretary of State carefully consider the actual effect of his target of 60 per cent. of new housing being built on brown-field land. I appreciate that he has increased the figure from 50 per cent. and I applaud that, but the new target is of little comfort to the people of Gloucestershire, who will probably have to endure about 90 per cent. of new building on green-field sites, leaving only about 10 per cent. to be built on brown-field land. In Tewkesbury, probably 100 per cent. of new building will have to be on green-field sites. The Minister shakes his head, but I cannot imagine where houses will be built in Tewkesbury if it is not on green-field sites.
191 In other words, it is all well and good setting a national target of 60 per cent., but I would suggest that a target should be set for each county, thereby adding meaning and substance to what is at present mere philosophy. Again, PPG3 suggests that local areas should have such a target, but what does the Minister intend to do in areas which have very little brown-field land available, such as Gloucestershire? Will he allow them to build fewer houses? Again, the action should match the rhetoric.
The position in Gloucestershire needs reviewing for a number of reasons, including the shortage of brown-field sites in the county, the attractive countryside, the building that has already taken place, the fact that much of my constituency sits on a flood plain. There are many other reasons, not least the recently published household projection figures. For all those reasons, the inspector, or perhaps the Secretary of State, should be reducing the number of houses required for Gloucestershire, not increasing it.
I understand that only this morning, the county council proposed to reject the EIP figures and stick to the original 50,000 houses, as in its structure plan. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will take no action against the council because if he does, he will be acting against the people of Gloucestershire. That would fly in the face of democracy and common sense, and would further contradict the Government's stated policy of wanting to protect the countryside.
A high housing figure for Gloucestershire would put pressure on the borough councils to build houses in the most inappropriate places. In Tewkesbury, where the recently published local plan was based on a lower housing figure, the council proposed building houses in an historic town which already struggles with too much traffic and cannot take any more cars on its small lanes, in a village where permission was once refused because the land was deemed to be unsuitable, on hundreds of people's allotments, in two separate villages where such building threatens coalescence and, again, on green-field sites and in the open countryside.
People say, "Of course we need houses"—but we do not know how many. Already, the 4.4 million prediction is being shown to be too high, and who can tell whether the trends of recent years will continue? Couples may not continue to break up as frequently as they do now, and house sharing may become more commonplace than it is now. As the Secretary of State said, on 29 March, in a written answer to a parliamentary question,
Such trends can and do change".—[Official Report 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 471.]I was born in a town in north-west England, and lived there for 33 years before moving to live in the countryside; so I feel that I understand the needs of both town and country. I feel also that I understand homelessness, as, before I was elected to the House, I ran a major project to help homeless women in London. However, homelessness has little to do with a shortage of houses—the issue is much more complicated than that. Therefore, even if we built too few houses, people would not become homeless because there were not enough houses.Building millions of new houses creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which houses are built, house prices are therefore restrained and—hey, presto—people buy those houses. However, that does not mean that those houses 192 were needed initially. Therefore, I welcome another statement in the amendment that I mentioned earlier, saying that
the Government recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth".I genuinely welcome those words, and look forward to welcoming the action. I should unreservedly welcome such action if I were to witness it. So far, there has been no change in the approach—although the Secretary of State, in the written answer of 29 March, also said of the "predict and provide" process that "That policy is dead." It is not dead.Even if higher housing requirements are justifiably predicted, they cannot necessarily be provided—and definitely not in every single area of the country—if we are to retain at least some of the countryside and avoid causing great damage to the environment. More houses means more damage to the environment. It means more cars and more car journeys, which further damage the environment.
A compromise available to the Government might be to encourage renovation of older properties. How many houses stand empty across the country? How many flats above shops stand empty which, if renovated, could help to regenerate towns and cities? But what encouragement is given to renovating existing properties when the value added tax rate on such renovation work is 17.5 per cent., whereas no VAT is chargeable on new houses built on green-field sites? The Government should correct that perverse situation by removing VAT from renovation work, and by charging VAT at the top rate on new build and green-field land.
We should not neglect the countryside and the environment in the clamour to build new houses, especially when they cannot be shown to be needed. Wanting to protect the countryside and to preserve green fields, hills, dales, farm land and beauty is not mere romanticism, as such an environment is one of the things that makes life worth living. We cannot continue taking land for building, for to do so would be to turn the United Kingdom into an undesirable urban sprawl, with the countryside being lost for ever to current and future generations.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on the cogent way in which he has dealt with a difficult subject, and on the timing of his debate. The decisions that the Secretary of State will make on housing projections—how many houses will be built between now and 2016—in Gloucestershire will affect all the constituencies there, but particularly my hon. Friend's constituency, and my own constituency, approximately 85 per cent. of which is designated, in one way or another, for planning purposes, and which has the highest percentage of housing stock designated as listed buildings.
In a very short speech, my real message to the Minister is that we must get the numbers right. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury should be congratulated on the work that he has done to try to ensure that the number of new houses is set at 50,000 and no more, as that would be the appropriate number if the national average were followed. As a result of the examination in public, 193 the inspector decided that Gloucestershire should have a higher number of new houses, at 1.03 per cent., than the national average, which is set at 1.01 per cent.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I am very keen to prevent excessive building in rural areas. The manifesto of each of the three parties states that each party wishes to protect the environment. I believe that the sensible place to build houses is near to people's work, as doing so would avoid excessive use of motor cars, with all the environmental benefits that that brings. Some of the rural areas designated for new houses by Gloucestershire county council, after the Government's imposition of an excessive number of houses, are totally inappropriate for large-scale new settlements.
In the previous Parliament, the Minister and I both served on the Environment Select Committee. Therefore, he will know as well as I do that we are not using existing housing stock as well as we should, and that much of the housing survey shows that our existing housing stock could be better maintained. The proposal on VAT made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury is worth considering.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that we should do more to encourage people to live above shops. In many of our towns and cities, whole streets have hardly anyone living above shops. More should be done to ensure security of tenure, and council tax should be used to encourage larger shop owners and retail chains to persuade people to live above shops.
I agree with my hon. Friend also that we should not unnecessarily cover in houses our precious rural areas, particularly the green belt. Once those areas have been covered with houses, there will be no turning back. We should adopt a regional realism in housing policy. Why should Gloucestershire have to build houses in numbers above the national average? Why should it have to build above the south-western regional average? Why should those houses be imposed on Gloucestershire?
For the whole of the 18 years in which Conservative Members were in government, we rigorously protected the green belt and the rural countryside. I hope that the Government will do the same, in the interests of future generations.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on securing this debate, on a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has also contributed to the debate. I tell him that, if he wants to pursue the matter in the same non-partisan spirit as that shown by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, it is not terribly helpful to suggest that the Government are imposing figures on Gloucestershire, and that the previous Government did not do so. The reality is that the figures being debated were developed using a system that operated under the previous Government and have been inherited by the current Government. We are seeking to change the procedures, as I shall describe shortly. However, it is a travesty to pretend that the Government are trying impose something that the previous Government were not.
194 I tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that household growth is a difficult issue facing society. Some people would like to believe that such growth can be wished away and that no new houses have to be built. However, I think that he realises that that is not realistic. He is concerned with provision of people's housing needs, and appreciates that it is important that society should try to provide appropriately, although in a manner that does not damage the countryside. We have to consider estimates of prospective need for housing and to try to do the best that we can—recognising that household projections cannot be an absolutely accurate science, but that it is necessary to make the best possible estimates.
It may be useful to the House if I start by explaining how household projections are arrived at, and how they are translated into development plans. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will be aware, in announcing recently the latest household projection figures, the Secretary of State recognised that household growth may be slowing. In particular, the projections show that the number of new households projected to form in England over the 25 years between 1996 and 2021 is about 3.8 million, compared with the 4.4 million projected for the previous 25-year period, which will end in 2016.
The 3.8 million figure is derived principally by projecting previous patterns of population change and household formation, and should not be seen as a forecast or estimate. It is based entirely on what might be expected to occur if previous trends continue. It is heavily dependent on the assumptions. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury pointed out, and as the Government are stressing, trends can and do change.
The suggestion from the latest figures is that the pace of household growth may be slowing down. Part of the underlying reason for that is that recent evidence has shown that cohabitation is increasing at a faster rate than expected, and there are also a smaller proportion of women who are widows or divorcees.
We must not think only in terms of numbers. We are keen to focus the debate on how we should plan for future homes in a sustainable way. The consultation paper, "Planning for the Communities of the Future"—which we published last year—set out the results of our analysis of the system that we inherited from the previous Administration for calculating and providing for the country's housing needs. The paper set out our strategy for promoting more sustainable patterns of development and encouraging urban renewal.
We are also seeking to ensure that, where development is needed outside, or adjacent to, urban areas, that must be sustainable and must be combined with an active approach towards the protection of the countryside. Those proposals represent a sustainable and comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs in the country well into the new millennium. They differ from the previous approach in that there is no longer adherence to the principle of "predict and provide". We are seeking to implement a principle of "plan, monitor and manage", recognising the need for planning and the need to monitor actual trends and to vary the arrangements according to experience.
We have also changed our approach to establishing the housing numbers by region. Our new draft planning policy guidance 11 on regional planning, which sets out our proposals for improving the preparation and content 195 of regional planning guidance, represents an important step in modernising the planning system and reflects our commitment to decentralised decision taking.
The new arrangements give greater responsibility to local authorities, through regional planning conferences, in preparing regional planning strategies, and should mean increased regional ownership of the policies and increased commitment to their delivery. Instead of the Government, the regional planning body will be responsible for preparing the draft regional strategy, including proposing the amount of additional housing needed in the plan period.
We have also recently announced household projections for each of the Government offices of the regions, and, again, those should not be regarded as forecasts or predictions. Other factors should equally be taken into account so that regional planning bodies should, against the background of need and capacity, take a realistic and responsible approach to planning future housing provision.
Of course we realise that similar information at sub-regional level will be useful as background for the regional planning process and the preparation of regional planning guidance, so we will be writing to the regional planning bodies to make relevant information available in a form consistent with that published as part of the last set of household projections in 1995. It takes longer to develop the figures sub-regionally, which is why they have not yet been published. As soon as we are satisfied that the figures are as accurate and appropriate as possible, we will publish them.
The new arrangements provide a more open and inclusive process for determining planning issues at the regional level. The new strategies, including the new housing figures, will be tested at public examinations by independent panels whose reports will be made public. The new procedure has been piloted in East Anglia, where a public examination was completed last month. The south-west regional planning guidance is still at draft stage, and is due for public examination early next year.
One of the key tasks of new-style regional planning guidance will be to provide guidance on the overall level of housing and its distribution within the region, making full use of previously developed land. In assessing the housing provision required for the 15 to 20-year period covered by the strategy, we expect the regional planning body to work with other regional stakeholders to establish the level of housing likely to be required to meet the region's housing needs.
In making the assessment, the Government's latest published household projections should be taken into account. Equally, urban capacity studies should be undertaken to explore the implications of changing policies and standards which would reduce the land take of new development while securing attractive residential environments. Against that background of need and capacity, the regional planning body should be able to take a realistic and responsible approach to future housing provision. It must be prepared to justify its views fully in public at the examination of the draft regional planning guidance. The structure plan and unitary development plan authorities will, of course, be party to the process.
Once the housing requirement has been established and confirmed by the Secretary of State, following the public examination, the presumption is that structure plans and 196 unitary plans should then focus on the broad distribution and the location of growth. It is the essence of the plan, monitor and manage approach that both the assessment of housing requirements and the distribution within the region should be kept under review. If there are signs of under-provision or over-provision, we expect both the regional planning guidance and development plans to be reviewed accordingly. We need to work together to ensure that the new approach is developed in as constructive a context as possible.
I shall deal now with the housing figures in the review of the Gloucestershire structure plan. Regional planning guidance figures were agreed by the authorities in the region in 1994. They showed that 53,000 extra homes were needed in the county between 1991 and 2011, based on 1989-based household projections. In reviewing the structure plan, the county council took a figure of 50,000 extra homes as its starting point. Of this total, about 9,100 were allocated to Tewkesbury.
The plan was subject to public scrutiny at an examination in public in September 1998. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that this was held by a Government inspector. I should stress that those holding the examination form an independent panel. They are drawn from the Government inspectorate, but they report to the county council. Their role is to assess the evidence submitted by all who contribute to the examination in public.
Officials from the Government office for the south-west, who attended the examination, pressed for greater account to be taken of the need to focus development on the urban areas, to promote recycling of land—more than was provided for previously—and higher densities to reduce land take and to ensure greater integration between housing, employment and transportation. After considering the representations, the panel recommended that the housing provision should be increased to 55,000.
The matter was then presented to the county council. I had understood—although the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has given me new evidence today—that the county council had proposed that the overall housing provision should revert to 53,000. If the council is now proposing another figure, clearly it will have to demonstrate sound evidence for reaching it; it would be inappropriate simply to pluck a figure out of thin air. I do not know the basis for that figure and will therefore say no more. However, the figures should be tested at examinations in public, and the county council should reach a considered view. The matter will come to the Secretary of State in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to say more.
§ Mr. Laurence RobertsonI am grateful to the Minister for showing his customary courtesy in giving way. His remarks form the thrust of what I am saying. Will the Minister reject what the county council is saying locally? He has referred to the broad-brush approach of the inspector, but the building of houses on the green belt and in the open countryside was promoted. That is why the report is contradictory and flawed.
§ Mr. RaynsfordI cannot comment on such details. However, a county council that has had a long time to consider the matter clearly must consider all the evidence 197 before it reaches a view. It would be surprising if—having come to the view a little while ago that it was to recommend 53,000—the council now, according to the hon. Gentleman, is suggesting 50,000. I am not sure what the basis for that is, and I cannot comment. However, it is in the interests of all concerned that the plan reaches adoption as soon as possible because we cannot allow the situation—which the hon. Gentleman described as a farce—to go on much longer.
In conclusion, the way forward lies in building on the positive options for meeting housing requirements and protecting the countryside. There is much more common ground than is sometimes acknowledged. Everyone wants to see as much land recycling as possible, and more use of brown-field sites. Everyone wants to see more sustainable patterns of development. Everyone wants to protect the countryside and to help to regenerate our urban areas.
We are conscious of the need to improve the renovation of existing homes. That is why we have increased investment through the capital receipts initiative, and why we have given particular focus to the home improvement agencies that operate locally to advise home owners on their scope for getting grants and assistance to improve their homes. We want to do more to encourage the regeneration of existing homes and the improvement of existing properties.
Everyone wants to ensure that people are properly housed. What we are trying to do is to develop an agenda as pro-actively as possible, and there is a great deal more work to be done in this field. We have a full programme of revising the relevant planning policy guidance notes. We have now published—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. We now come to the next debate.