HC Deb 22 June 1992 vol 210 cc93-5W
Mr. Cran

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what evidence the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 based its conclusions on the opportunities for residential development in the city of Hull;

(2) what assessment has been made by the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 of the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate growth in the areas they designate;

(3) if he will make a statement on the reasoning behind the view of the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 that market demand cannot be switched from one part of the wider Hull area to another;

(4) what factors led to the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 to conclude that the scope for development on the periphery of the larger settlements in the borough of Beverley had not been fully explored;

(5) what methodology the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 used to distribute the target housing figure between the nine Humberside districts;

(6) what was the methodology used by the examining panel to arrive at the flexibility allowance in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

(7) what was the source of the housing provision figure produced by the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

(8) what consideration the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 gave to the desirability of waiting for the outcome of the 1991 census results before reaching conclusions about the housing provision figures;

(9) if he will make a statement on the proposals in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 to relax policy S9 in the existing structure plan;

(10) what were the range of factors aside from marketability used by the examining panel to determine housing provision figures for each of the Humberside districts in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

(11) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the examining panel's recommendations are in accord with recent departmental advice on sustainability;

(12) for what reasons the error in policy 39(ii) concerning the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, referred to by the borough of Beverley, was not corrected;

(13) for what reasons the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan decided to limit itself to two tours of inspection of the county before recommending alterations to the plan;

(14) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, what weight he attached to the strength of existing policies and, in particular, policy S9 in the existing Humberside county structure plan in reaching the conclusion that there was no need for a green belt because pressures could be controlled by means of these existing policies;

(15) if he will specify the grounds on which he reached the conclusion that the examining panel's recommenda-tions concerning additional housing in the borough of Beverley in relation to the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 were in accord with the recent departmental advice that the best and most versatile land should be protected;

(16) for what reasons the objection submitted in writing by the borough of Beverley was not taken into account by the examining panels in their statement concerning the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1 that policy S7(a) was not the subject of objection at the examination in public;

(17) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1, for what reasons he decided to support the proposals recommended by the examining panel which will join together by future development the city of Hull and the presently distinct urban areas of the borough of Beverley;

(18) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1 on what factors he based his conclusions that the examining panel's recommendations are in accord with his recent departmental advice concerning the placing of increased emphasis on re-using urban land as a means of relieving pressure on the countryside;

(19) in relation to the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1, for what reasons the examining panels decided that 29 per cent. of the increase in housing provision should be placed in the borough of Beverley rather than in other districts in the county;

(20) for what reasons he decided to be site specific in the alterations to the existing Humberside county structure plan rather than follow the previous practice of being non-site specific in the structure plan.

Mr. Baldry

The panel's reasons for its recommenda-tions are set out in its published report, and it would be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend to elaborate on those. Similarly, his reasons for proposing the published modifications are contained in his statement relating to those modifications, which has also been published.

When the period for representations ends, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider all those received before deciding whether to proceed straight to approval of the alteration, or whether to propose further modifications.