§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase resources allocated to programmes such as derelict land grants and small clearance grants dedicated to bringing waste land into use and improving its appearance.
§ Mr. TrippierThe resources available for bringing derelict and other land back into use have already been greatly increased. Funds for derelict land grant have been 845W increased by 80 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80 and the urban development corporations have available further substantial resources for reclamation.
§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to reclaim waste land for green and soft end uses as a means of improving the image of run down areas; and if he can provide funds accordingly.
§ Mr. TrippierDerelict land grant is available in England for the reclamation and improvement of derelict and neglected or unsightly land. Resources of £77.4 million have been made available for 1988–89. While the main priority for the use of derelict land grant will be schemes designed to reclaim inner-city land for private sector development, funds are available for schemes with green and soft end uses, particularly where such schemes will encourage investment and economic activity within areas of extensive or concentrated dereliction, through the creation of a more attractive environment.
§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make policies for the re-use of unused land a central feature of county development plans.
§ Mr. TrippierWe have long emphasised to local planning authorities that it is essential that the planning system, including development plans, should continue to identify and realise the development potential of unused, neglected or derelict land within existing urban areas. This helps to protect the countryside and assists in urban regeneration. The advice has been most recently set out in our planning policy guidance notes 3 and 4, published in January this year, which deal with housing and industrial and commercial development respectively.
§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is prepared to enlarge the registers of publicly owned unused land to include sites in the ownership of other public bodies and the private sector.
§ Mr. TrippierNo.
§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, county by county, the amount of land and the number of sites lying vacant, dormant, unused and derelict in total in Britain's urban areas and the proportion of this land in private ownership.
§ Mr. TrippierThe information is not available exactly in the form requested. The tables list, county by county, the amount of derelict land in England's urban areas recorded in the derelict land survey of 1982, the proportion of this land in private ownership, and the amount of land on the registers of under used publicly owned land in urban programme districts. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales deal with derelict land in their respective countries. The land registers do not record land in private ownership. They cover 19 of the 37 districts in Wales, but the legislation does not apply to Scotland.
846W
Statistics contained in survey of derelict land 1982 Counties Urban derelict land Proportion of urban derelict land in private ownership (hectares) (per cent.) Cleveland 1,251 66 Cumbria 544 43 Durham 511 59 Northumberland 350 82 Tyne and Wear 905 30 Cheshire 668 40 Lancashire 973 45 Greater Manchester 2,502 28 Merseyside 1,480 39 Humberside 590 4 North Yorkshire 98 51 South Yorkshire 591 57 West Yorkshire 1,619 — Hereford and Worcester1 104 — Shropshire1 642 — Staffordshire1 805 — Warwickshire 226 60 West Midlands 1,782 58 Derbyshire 1,164 33 Leicestershire 255 32 Lincolnshire 13 67 Northamptonshire 152 4 Nottinghamshire 512 21 Cambridgeshire 44 48 Norfolk 30 10 Suffolk 39 54 Avon 118 39 Cornwall2 0 — Devon 51 24 Dorset1 79 — Gloucestershire 87 — Somerset1 10 — Wiltshire 29 7 Bedfordshire 11 0 Berkshire 6 100 Buckinghamshire 0 — East Sussex 41 51 Essex 504 — Hampshire 120 57 Hertfordshire 61 34 Isle of Wight 0 — Kent 228 77 Oxfordshire1 36 — Surrey 56 52 West Sussex 9 0 Greater London 1,710 15 ENGLAND 21,006 — 1 The figures that relate to derelict land are based on incomplete returns. 2 Cornish returns do not distinguish between urban and rural. Note: Where no figures are given, there is no UP district within that county.
847W
Land registers at 30 June 1988 Land in the 57 areas programme district by county Counties hectares sites Cleveland 1,417 211 Cumbria — — Durham — — Northumberland — — Tyne and Wear 1,404 326 Cheshire 158 33 Lancashire 788 119 Greater Manchester 1,333 484 Merseyside 1,301 288 Humberside 490 86 North Yorkshire — — South Yorkshire 1,428 303 West Yorkshire 1,429 361 Hereford and Worcester1 — — Shropshire1 836 127 Staffordshire1 — — Warwickshire — — West Midlands 806 252 Derbyshire 114 32 Leicestershire 361 45 Lincolnshire — — Northamptonshire — — Nottinghamshire 128 44 Cambridgeshire — — Norfolk — — Suffolk — — Avon 318 59 Cornwall2 — — Devon 201 44 Dorset1 — — Gloucestershire — — Somerset1 — — Wiltshire — — Bedfordshire — — Berkshire — — Buckinghamshire — — East Sussex — — Essex — — Hampshire — — Hertfordshire — — Isle of Wight — — Kent — — Oxfordshire1 — — Surrey — — West Sussex — — Greater London 528 167 England 13,040 2,981 1 The figures that relate to derelict land are based on incomplete returns. 2 Cornish returns do not distinguish between urban and rural. Note: Where no figures are given, there is no UP district within that county.
§ Ms. WalleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission research and institute a land audit to be carried out by local councils to produce comprehensive statistics on vacant and dormant land on a regular basis.
§ Mr. TrippierMy Department is mounting a series of pilot studies with Ordnance Survey to examine ways of identifying vacant land in urban areas, its size and its type.
848WAny decision on the collection and publication of vacant land statistics on a regular basis must wait until these pilot studies have been completed.
A comprehensive land audit would place an unacceptable burden on local authorities.