HC Deb 02 June 1981 vol 5 cc328-9W
Mr. Kimball

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has completed discussions with the local authorities involved in the Greater London Council town expansion schemes; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

As I announced on 14 December 1979, the Government concluded that the various schemes whereby local authorities receive population from Greater London should be terminated as quickly as possible. I set out the categories of transitional arrangements proposed, and my Department notified each local authority concerned which category was proposed for it.

The majority of local authorities were content with the category proposed. My Department has since discussed the question with each of the others.

The termination of these schemes does not, in any way weaken the ability of local authorities to promote the economic growth of their areas since the effects are limited to ending certain special assistance for housing and amenities related to the movement of families from Greater London, and particular arrangements for industrial development certificates which has lost most of its significance as a result of changes in IDC control, particularly those announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on 17 July 1979 and 6 August 1980.

In the light of the views expressed by the local authorities we have concluded that there is no case for changing the proposed transitional arrangements.

Termination of the agreement between the Greater London Council and the local authority is a matter for the two parties. Where the Government are involved, the position in the light of our conclusions will be as follows:

  1. (i) Those which have already terminated or where the special arrangements will be brought to an end forthwith:
    • Basingstoke
    • Braintree and Witham
    • Grantham (South Kesteven)
    • Houghton Regis (South Bedfordshire)
    • Plymouth
    • Thetford (Breckland)
  2. (ii) Those where there will be a transitional period of up to three years for the special arrangements for industrial development certificates and of five years within which councils can submit new claims for amenity grants:
    • Andover (Test Valley)
    • Ashford (Kent)
    • Aylesbury (Vale of Aylesbury)
    • Banbury (Cherwell)
    • Bodmin (North Cornwall)
    • Bury St Edmunds (St Edmundsbury)
    • Gainsborough (West Lindsey)
    • Haverhill (St Edmundsbury)
    • Huntingdon
    • St Neots (Huntingdon)
    • Kings Lynn (West Norfolk)
    • Melford and Sudbury (Babergh)
    • Mildenhall and Brandon (Forest Heath)
    • Sandy (Mid Bedfordshire)
    • Swindon (Thamesdown)
    • Wellingborough
  3. (iii) One scheme which will not be terminated at this stage (because it would be faced with serious difficulties) and has signed a revised agreement with the GLC:
  • Hastings

Forward to