HC Deb 05 March 2004 vol 418 cc1214-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Gillian Merron.]

2.31 pm
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire)

It is a pleasure to be able to hold this debate on a subject that is of enormous interest and concern to my constituents. I am delighted to see the Minister for Housing and Planning at the Dispatch Box. I know that he is always careful and conscientious, and I am sure that he will give a considered reply to the very serious points that I shall raise on behalf of my constituents.

My first point is that I find it somewhat extraordinary that I should have to hold a debate in Parliament today on what is essentially entirely a local matter that should, in the proper course of events, be dealt with by the relevant local authorities in my constituency. I shall say a little more later in the debate about the constitutional concerns that result from what the Government are doing with planning and house building.

In essence, as far as South Bedfordshire is concerned, the Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional strategy intends to ensure that, up to 2031, 43,000 additional houses are built to the north and west of Dunstable and Houghton Regis, with others perhaps around the village of Stanbridge. In addition, there is the possibility that a further 8,000 houses could be built in the town of Leighton Buzzard. Further expansion is possible on top of that.

Let me put the issue in context and explain what the broader parameters mean for South Bedfordshire. If another 51,000 houses are built, we will be looking at an increase of roughly 100,000 people. I have calculated that carefully on the census data, and it is a conservative estimate based on the household numbers currently in Bedfordshire. It will also mean—again, calculated on a conservative basis—roughly 70,000 more cars on the roads of South Bedfordshire. We are looking at doubling the population of the area.

I am well aware, as the local Member of Parliament, that there is great housing need in my constituency. I defer to no one in wanting to see that solved. I feel highly inadequate as a Member of Parliament when, week after week, my constituents come to me because they are unhoused or very inadequately housed. I know that, in the short term, there is very little that I, my local housing authority or local housing associations can offer them.

We have about 2,000 people on the local housing list and South Bedfordshire district council already had in place before the arrival of the communities plan, as it is called, plans to build another 7,000 houses in South Bedfordshire. That alone is not an insignificant expansion for the local area. My constituents cannot understand the scale and nature of the Government's proposals to build between 43,000 and 51,000 extra houses in South Bedfordshire, but, judging by everything that I have heard, they fundamentally disagree with them. I want to analyse why the scale and nature of the Government's proposals for South Bedfordshire are not right for our area. We must relate the situation to jobs and consider the Bedfordshire economy, because having a house is one thing, but we must consider how the people who will live in them will survive economically and earn their living.

At the moment, 40 per cent. of the work force in Bedfordshire commutes out of the county to work, which causes massive congestion on our roads. The M1 is regularly gridlocked, and although I know that there are plans to widen it, I suspect that it will remain a pretty packed road, especially at commuting times. Trains on the main railway lines to London that run through Leighton Buzzard and Luton are very full during regular commuting times.

I have heard no convincing explanation of how we will find jobs for the workers among the 100,000 extra people who will come to live in South Bedfordshire. The job growth that we can realistically envisage is likely to happen on the south-east side of Luton—around the old Vauxhall car plant site and Luton airport—but that is directly on the other side of Luton from where the majority of the houses will be built. That does not seem to make sense, and it will lead to further local congestion. Roughly 1,200 people are currently unemployed in South Bedfordshire—the figure has slightly risen over the past few months—and the situation will lead to further competition for those people. Many people in Leighton Buzzard would like to work locally, but are unable to do so. They have to commute to London, Milton Keynes, Watford or other larger towns in the area.

There are fundamental questions on transport to which we do not have the answers. Will the Minister give me an absolutely honest answer to a principal question: what is the purpose of the Dunstable northern bypass? The Highways Agency believes, on the basis of the London to south midlands multi-modal study that the Government commissioned, that the bypass, for which people have been asking for 80 years, is required now to relieve awful congestion in Dunstable and Houghton Regis. It is unusual to find a major stretch of trunk road going through the middle of an urban area to such a degree as the A5 does in Dunstable and on the edge of Houghton Regis. However, if one studies the Milton Keynes and south midlands study and the pronouncements of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, one sees that the Dunstable northern bypass is clearly described as a route that will facilitate further growth in the area. Those two statements and reasons cannot stand together. My constituents would tell the Minister that the road is desperately needed as soon as possible to cope with current congestion and that house building on anything like the scale proposed would make the situation even worse than it is at present. We really need an answer about what is happening.

I am pleased that Bedfordshire county council has called on the Government to undertake a serious transport study of the whole of south Bedfordshire. It especially calls on them to create a strategic rail connection between the west coast main line near Leighton Buzzard and the midland main line near Luton. That is significant, not least because Bedfordshire county council has withdrawn its support for the Translink scheme, which it supported for many years in its early days. Recent studies have shown that Translink is likely to lead to a reduction of only 1 per cent. in car traffic between Luton, central Dunstable and Houghton Regis. It would be incredibly expensive and bad value for money, and would not serve people in the outlying areas who need to get to the towns concerned. So we have serious questions on transport in the area.

As for the infrastructure that will need to be provided for even 7,000 to 8,000 additional houses in the district, we know that the Government intend to build the bypass out of the planning gain from the houses that they hope to build south of it—so section 106 money will go towards that. We have no commitments on the additional community facilities that will be needed, such as schools and those that provide health care. There are serious concerns about essential things, such as water. The Minister will be familiar with the report by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which drew attention to the problem of water supply. It is likely that water will end up being extremely expensive within the south Bedfordshire area because of the additional works that will need to be put in place.

We know from a recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation that local authorities will not get extra landfill allowances for a growth in population, but the plan to have an incinerator at the Shank's plant south of Bletchley was recently overturned. There are concerns about such basic matters.

Woodland and green spaces outside of our towns will be under huge pressure. The owner of land on the edge of Linslade recently tried to bulldoze a community woodland area. Thankfully, that was stopped, but that action is indicative of the pressures that my area faces.

Leighton Buzzard has a significant infrastructure shortage. There is no local hospital facility. Again, high numbers of people commute out of the town, many of whom would like to work locally. The town is already severely congested. Those issues need to be addressed now, before we agree to large numbers of extra housing.

Perhaps the Minister can help me with my concerns about the green belt. My constituents were intrigued to read a letter from the Minister's boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Daily Mail on 6 February, in which he said: "Your article on Wednesday mentioned 'threatened Downing Street plans to allow thousands of homes on Green Belt land'. There are no such plans. No Ministers are demanding the rules on Green Belt must be relaxed. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot be that familiar with the plans of south Bedfordshire. Almost the entire housing stock that he proposes will be on green belt land. We want that discrepancy explained. Those green lungs around our towns are important not for the country dwellers who are lucky enough to live in green spaces, but for the people who live in the middle of our towns who want to go out and enjoy them. We have not had a satisfactory answer on that.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Minister is steering through Parliament allows unelected regional assemblies, through their regional spatial strategies, to dictate the number and style of houses that are built in localities. The Minister's communities plan goes even further, in that it introduces urban development corporations, with a minority of elected councillors who will take the vital decisions that should be taken locally.

We face a worrying fact in respect of the public examination. When the commissioners were asked recently whether the Government would listen if the strategy were found to be unsound, the reply was that this was part of Government policy and that the Government had a majority. What is local democracy for if it is not for local people to take local decisions on the key matters that affect their areas?

I wonder whether the Minister saw the report in The Times on 12 February by Camilla Cavendish, one of its distinguished journalists. She wrote: This is not even 'predict and provide', it is 'dictate and provide'. She writes that the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities plan would be better renamed "the Soviet command plan". These are local matters and they should be dealt with by local people —"trust the people" is what I say to the Minister. Does he think that my constituents are not sensible people? Does he think that they do not want homes for their children to enable them to live in an affordable manner close to their wider families?

We are not nimbys in south Bedfordshire. We recognise that there needs to be future growth. We want to provide for those who are inadequately housed in a sensible and planned way. The Minister has many serious questions to answer. My constituents are about to hang on his every word.

2.46 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate on a subject of such clear importance to his constituents. I should explain that I may be constrained in what I can say at this stage, with the public examination into the Milton Keynes and south midlands strategy starting on 23 March. The hon. Gentleman has raised many issues, and I shall do my best in the limited time available to respond to them.

Dunstable and adjoining Luton are successfully coming through a period of economic change following the contraction of motor manufacture. The growth area proposals represent a major opportunity for local people. As with other parts of the sub-region, the proposals are designed to ensure that the area benefits from the strong economic growth that has characterised Milton Keynes.

Before addressing more detailed questions, I shall provide the House with some background. The Milton Keynes and south midlands area was identified in 2001 as one of four growth areas in the south-east. The others are Ashford, London Stansted-Cambridge, and Thames Gateway. The House will be aware that we are still at only the early stages of what is 1ikely to be a 20-year growth programme in these areas.

In February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on our programme of action, entitled "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". All Members were provided with a copy of the plan at that time. It made it clear that a step change was essential to tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing population, the needs of the economy and serious housing shortages.

In response to its identification as a growth area, the regional assemblies for the east of England, east midlands and the south-east produced the draft Milton Keynes and south midlands strategy. It was submitted to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in July 2003. There was a 12-week period of public consultation ending in October and a series of public consultation events. More than 1,600 representations were received, which indicates the level of community engagement. We were delighted by that level of participation. This Government trust the people and we will engage with the people throughout the development of the growth area policy.

Andrew Selous

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill

No, I will not. I do not have time. I have much to say and little time in which to say it.

There will be a public examination under an independent panel in March and April. The panel will submit its report. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will then publish his decisions on the panel's recommendations, together with proposed changes to the strategy for further public consultation. The finalised strategy will be published at the end of 2004 or early 2005. This process means that there is the opportunity to address concerns about the draft strategy and for further community involvement.

The draft strategy proposes jobs-led growth and the accommodation of development in sustainable ways. It concentrates growth in six main urban areas—Aylesbury; Bedford; Luton-Dunstable; Milton Keynes; Northampton; and Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby. That approach will build strong local communities based on thriving local economies.

For Luton-Dunstable, the strategy proposes the construction of 20,500 dwellings between 2001 and 2021, which will mean perhaps 45,000 extra residents, and the target will be achieved through a combination of regeneration and urban extensions. The hon. Gentleman quotes the figure of 100,000 extra residents, but I stress that current plans do not include such large additional numbers.

Economic restructuring is central with potential to accommodate job growth by the regeneration of existing industrial areas close to Luton airport and in the urban extensions. The announcement in the airports White Paper that Luton airport will expand to 30 million passengers a year confirms the economic realism of the proposals.

The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about the loss of green belt land and the density of development, and I have four points to make. First, the 50 dwellings a hectare figure he quotes is the net density for the areas of housing alone. It comes from the Luton-Dunstable assessment study, which informed the strategy and can be tested through the examination process. The gross density—with allowance for schools, open space and the rest — is 28.5 dwellings per hectare, which is in line with Government planning policy and is not exceptional.

Secondly, using land efficiently will reduce greenfield land take. Thirdly, I am informed that the local authority that the hon. Gentleman represents holds on to more industrial land than is justified, which is contrary to Government policy and is bound to increase the requirement for greenfield land. Finally, we accept that green belt land may be released in exceptional circumstances, but I emphasise that the Government are committed to replacing any green belt land that is lost through housing or infrastructure development.

Reflecting the strong population growth in the Luton area, local authorities were already proposing in the Bedfordshire structure plan review that land north of Dunstable and Luton should be removed from the green belt. Sustainable communities are not only about building houses. They are also about providing high-quality, well-designed developments with first-class services where people will want to live. They are about balancing housing provision and expected job growth.

Through the growth areas fund, the Government have made £164 million available to the three non-Thames gateway growth areas for various types of new infrastructure in the financial years from 2003 to 2006. That sum should lever in a further £1 billion from public and private sector partners.

Some £95 million has been committed to the Milton Keynes and south midlands area. For example, £3 million has been allocated to a mixed-use development at Bletchley Park. A key objective is to remove barriers to housing growth, which is, for example, why we have allocated £5 million to the Bedford western bypass, unlocking 3,500 dwellings. The need for feasibility work is recognised by the £800,000 allocated to plan primary care health services, and £6.7 million has been allocated to enhancing the countryside and access to it, including a new visitor centre at Dunstable downs.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that improved transport infrastructure is critical for growth. The Government recognised this in their announcements on the multi-modal studies in July 2003 and on local transport plans in December 2003. Among the schemes approved were widening the MI between the M25 and Milton Keynes, dualling the A421 from Bedford to the MI and the Luton town centre project, which includes a new bus station and ring road extension.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Dunstable northern bypass, which will address existing serious congestion in Dunstable and provide the opportunity to access new development areas rather than relying on the town's existing network. He asks whether section 106 funding will pay for the bypass. The answer is no—it will be funded by the Highways Agency. There is a related proposal for a Luton northern bypass, which is not currently agreed. Section 106 contributions related to development would be one of a number of funding options.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Translink guided bus, a joint proposal by Luton borough council and Bedfordshire, which was given provisional funding approval in the December 2003 local transport plan settlement. Subsequently, Bedfordshire county council resolved not to confirm its application for a Transport and Works Act order, though Luton may continue. As an alternative, Bedfordshire is urging the Government to create a strategic rail link between the west coast and midland main lines.

Although the route of the suggested strategic rail link has not been defined, my understanding is that the Strategic Rail Authority is unlikely to be enthusiastic about its prospects. Nevertheless, improved public transport is crucial to the growth area vision. Appraisal of the Translink scheme showed that it would provide a sustainable transport corridor linking Luton airport, Luton Parkway station, Luton railway and bus stations and Dunstable. It would also offer a step change in public transport across the conurbation by utilising on-street routes beyond the core route, with the potential for extension into the new development areas.

Infrastructure requirements go beyond transport. Building sustainable communities means ensuring high-quality health care, recreation and educational services. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that we plan well in advance for health care provision and education facilities in the growth areas. Delivery of growth depends on strong partnerships between a wide range of organisations. To ensure that, a Milton Keynes and south midlands inter-regional board has been established, chaired by my ministerial colleague Lord Rooker. The board brings together representatives of the full range of delivery agencies at the highest possible level. It will focus on areas where high-level executive intervention is necessary to deliver strategic infrastructure. The hoard's first meeting has already taken place, and its meetings are open to the public. We trust the public.

Andrew Selous

Will the Minister respond to a number of specific points in the short time remaining? First, he spoke about jobs. The jobs growth that he mentioned is on the other side of Luton from where my constituents are. Can he speak about local jobs in south Bedfordshire? None of my constituents knows where those jobs will come from. Secondly, can he confirm that South Bedfordshire district council will have a place in the consideration of part 1 matters in the examination in public? The local planning authority is currently excluded. That seems extraordinary. Thirdly, the Dunstable northern bypass is needed now to relieve appalling congestion. The Minister will have to come up with quite a lot more if he insists on the proposed number of houses, or the area will be completely gridlocked.

Keith Hill

The hon. Gentleman is properly impatient on behalf of his constituents. A number of the matters that he raises will have to be the subject of further deliberation, discussion and elaboration of policy, in which, I emphasise, South Bedfordshire will play a full role, particularly in relation to part 1 deliberations. I give him that assurance.

On growth, I take the point that the job opportunities identified in the course of my remarks may not be in his precise locality, but he should recognise that the economy is growing and developing intensely, with powerful demographic pressures. Luton, for example, has one of the highest birth rates in the country. That need must obviously be accommodated.

Central to our proposals is putting in place the right local delivery arrangements to reflect local needs and drive development in each of the growth locations. We recently consulted on local delivery proposals for west Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes. In the Luton-Dunstable area, consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers produced a report in December 2003 on the options for the local authorities. A joint proposal to Ministers is expected by Easter. There would then need to be further discussions before any proposal was agreed.

There is now a real opportunity to plan for sustainable growth for Luton-Dunstable, building on the area's economic renaissance. The Government are committed to assist in providing the infrastructure to support growth and enable Luton-Dunstable and the wider Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-region to prosper and play a major role within the national economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock