§ Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all local authority improvement
32W
1981–82 1982–83 1983–84 1984–85 1985–86 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1. Bristol — — — 5 3,867 63,250 — — — — — — — — — 2. Wokingham — — — 1 4,875 28,500 — — — — — — — — — 3. Peterborough — — — 2 15 17,000 7 823 53,500 6 2,473 67,450 — — — 4. Crewe and Nantwich — — — 2 670 30,700 — — — — — — — — — 5. Halton — — — 1 3,802 16,000 — — — — — — — — — 6. Warrington — — — — — — — — — 2 4,875 24,500 — — — 7. Hartlepool — — — — — — 6 2,895 114,500 7 4,131 147,000 — — — 8. Carrick — — — — — — — — — 5 4,801 112,050 — — — 9. Carlisle — — — 3 1,935 41,450 — — — — — — — — — 10. Erewash — — — — — — — — — 1 2,936 14,450 — — — 11. South Derbyshire — — — — — — 4 1,549 45,550 1 1,218 11,500 — — — 12. Plymouth — — — — — — 1 93 20,105 2 2,639 45,500 1 1,527 22,500 13. Mid Devon 1 1,420 19,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — 14. Torbay — — — — — — — — — 6 4,875 147,000 — — — 15. Torridge — — — — — — 25 4,875 336,750 — — — — — — 16. Chester le Street 1 3,250 6,500 — — — — — — — — — — — — 17. Darlington — — — 2 533 18,000 1 1,090 10,000 3 3,538 30,300 — — — 18. Easington — — — 6 704 112,648 2 784 36,800 — — — — — — 19. Wear Valley 3 1,080 25,250 — — — — — — — — — — — — 20. Lewes — — — 2 1,405 46,500 — — — — — — — — — 21. Braintree — — — — — — 1 1,980 21,000 1 783 23,000 1 2,273 21,750 22. Thurrock — — — — — — — — — 60 3,234 1,095,000 59 4,895 1,130,617 23. Gloucester — — — — — — 1 3,126 16,839 2 1,507 35,000 2 2,306 36,500 24. Southampton — — — — — — — — — 1 4,875 23,000 — — — 25. Leominster — — — — — — 1 1,472 21,750 2 1,715 49,000 — — — 26. Malvern Hills — — — — — — — — — 3 4,097 59,510 — — — 27. Worcester — — — 3 1,892 51,450 1 2,929 17,500 — — — — — — 28. Wychavon — — — 10 2,898 188,080 — — — — — — — — — 29. Scunthorpe — — — 1 1,120 8,150 — — — 2 1,779 23,000 — — — 30. Shepway — — — 2 1,686 35,500 2 948 38,250 — — — — — — 31. Blackburn 3 2,262 22,060 6 3,274 48,250 1 4,519 6,500 3 3,524 28,800 2 4,035 21,250 32. Burnley — — — — — — 1 4,508 5,000 10 4,492 67,400 1 4,875 5,500 33. Hyndburn — — — — — — — — — 1 4,581 23,750 3 2,883 30,250 34. Pendle 3 2,609 21,500 11 2,782 81,700 8 2,088 59,200 8 3,263 70,950 — — — 35. Charnwood 1 619 15,000 5 1,942 70,500 — — — — — — — — — 36. Norwich 3 538 52,500 3 581 52,500 — — — — — — — — — 37. Blyth Valley — — — — — — 5 4,384 68,000 — — — — — — 38. Wansbeck — — — 2 3,191 27,026 — — — — — — — — — 39. Scarborough — — — — — — 1 4,875 16,500 7 4,391 114,950 1 4,875 16,500 40. Ashfield — — — — — — 3 3,078 36,200 5 4,800 78,100 1 2,108 14,950 41. Nottingham — — — 1 4,875 11,950 1 4,875 10,750 — — — — — — 42. Vale of White Horse — — — 1 4,875 32,000 — — — — — — — — — 43. Bridgenorth — — — — — — 4 3,103 76,500 1 3,122 14,000 — — — 44. The Wrekin 1 1,394 14,300 9 3,638 122,200 5 3,345 84,166 7 3,461 74,600 — — — 45. Stafford — — — — — — 1 2,267 32,000 — — — — — — 46. Ipswich — — — 4 3,251 57,750 4 3,203 69,750 6 3,892 109,500 4 3,708 96,000 47. St. Edmondsbury — — — — — — 1 4,875 21,000 — — — — — — 48. Waveney — — — 1 3,250 16,750 — — — — — — — — — 49. Rugby 3 325 36,500 1 1,021 12,000 — — — — — — — — — 50. Bolton 4 4,831 41,050 9 4,632 96,250 23 4,520 256,708 39 4,624 474,750 17 4,875 211,000 51. Bury — — — 8 3,550 76,607 7 2,724 100,160 3 3,350 40,850 — — — 52. Manchester — — — — — — — — — 22 4,840 362,990 1 4,875 16,250 53. Oldham 1 3,250 10,550 6 2,993 58,900 — — — — — — — — — 54. Stockport 1 297 14,950 — — — — — — 1 1,537 9,000 — — — for sale schemes for which Exchequer subsidy has been paid during the last six years; and if he will specify for each scheme (a) the number of units of accommodation improved for sale (b) whether these units were acquired by the local authority for improvement for sale, or previously let by the local authority under secure tenancies (c) the level of subsidy paid per unit included in the scheme (d) the capital receipt to the local authority from the sale of the properties and (e) the value per unit of improvements.
§ Mr. Tracey[pursuant to his reply, 4 December 1986]: The available data on local authority improvement for sale schemes, toward which contribution has been paid, are set out below. Data are collected by dwellings rather than schemes, which may contain any number of dwellings, as contribution is payable separately for each dwelling rather than in aggregate for a scheme. Information on whether these units were acquired for IFS or were previously let as secure tenancies is not available on a directly comparable basis, and would be disproportionately expensive to provide. Information is not available on the proportion of the total qualifying cost of works to each dwelling attributable to works of improvement.
33W
1981–82 1982–83 1983–84 1984–85 1985–86 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 55. Tameside — — — 2 2,960 24,700 — — — — — — — — — 56. Wigan — — — — — — — — — 8 4,445 99,725 — — — 57. Knowsley — — — — — — — — — 30 4,875 588,450 1 42 18,000 58. Sefton 2 2,886 15,600 1 2,984 8,000 — — — — — — — — — 59. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 19 4,150 287,150 36 4,345 532,850 8 4,741 121,450 12 2,734 157,500 3 2,294 39,250 60. South Tyneside 2 37 16,000 3 827 32,250 2 2,477 32,000 1 76 16,000 — — — 61. Birmingham 11 2,693 100,375 25 3,101 271,320 5 2,707 60,655 2 3,088 25,250 1 1,885 11,850 62. Walsall 2 835 26,000 7 4,029 83,500 3 3,688 38,000 15 4,176 194,500 1 1,125 12,000 63. Wolverhampton 20 4,178 168,300 8 2,294 73,250 2 3,083 23,250 — — — 2 2,625 25,000 64. Leeds 2 1,907 18,100 — — — — — — — — — — — — 65. Brent — — — 5 3,199 145,500 18 2,664 591,500 — — — — — — 66. Ealing — — — — — — 5 3,250 117,973 2 6,500 48,900 — — — 67. Newham — — — 1 1,851 16,000 — — — 2 2,060 44,200 — — — 68. Waltham Forest — — — — — — 4 5,696 101,000 5 5,892 148,000 3 2,219 81,000 Column 1. Number of units towards which contribution was paid.
Column 2. Average contribution per unit.
Column 3. Market value of units (see note).
Note: In certain circumstances local authorities may sell improved properties at a discount. For the purposes of calculating the contribution payable, however, the market value rather than the selling price is used. Data on discounts given on these sales are not available.