---

House-building Programme

My Lords, I too express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for this timely debate. I acknowledge, too, that housing now has a much higher priority on the political agenda than it had a few years ago. I am personally in favour of the growth of the house-building programme, but, as other noble Lords have stated, it is important that it is sustainable—particularly in the south east, where the infrastructure in the widest sense is already considerably overstretched. Kate Barker’s analysis and report on housing needs, notwithstanding what some may have felt about her recommendations, was overdue and timely. Interestingly, it was published around the same time as Sir Michael Lyons’s first review and report on the dispersal of civil service work from London and the south east. The two issues have a link, and I want to say something about that link. The pressures in the south-east on housing can be mitigated to a degree by transferring public service work from the overheated south east, where many public servants have great difficulty getting on to the housing ladder, to other parts of the country such as the north, where there are areas of relatively high unemployment but where it is cheaper to build new housing. In some places, there is a stock of unoccupied older properties that could be refurbished at a lower cost. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to that. I was one of those who, for some time, had been pressing the Government to initiate a dispersal programme, in particular to ease the south east’s housing and labour markets. I press them to try again and see whether they are doing enough on that front. Given the size of the public service in the south east and the way in which it has expanded over the past six years, the aim to transfer only 20,000 jobs, as proposed, is very modest. When I consider that the Government were persuaded to extend the transfer programme for the 20,000 jobs from the original target date of 2008 to 2010, all I can say is, ““Well done, Sir Humphrey””. Given the concerns about the environmental and social consequences, which other noble Lords have mentioned, and with the additional pressures and demands that the Olympics will bring to London and the south east in 2012, is my noble friend the Minister content with the dispersal programme? Is there not a case for greater urgency? I certainly hope that she will be willing to check whether the Civil Service and public service estate in London and the south east is being used to provide the maximum opportunity to provide land for building houses and flats. I find it inexplicable that many of the insurance companies and financial houses that once had large operations on the south coast have upped and moved to lower-cost locations and there are still big back-office accounting operations, such as the former Inland Revenue offices in Worthing—a high cost area—located in the south-east. That operation covers acres and acres near the centre of Worthing that could be used for housing, particularly social housing. The functions could be equally well performed at lower cost in the provinces, in Scotland or perhaps—closer to the Minister’s heart—in Wales. I hear that, as the former Inland Revenue and HM Customs integrate their functions in the newly formed HM Revenue and Customs, more back-office work is being transferred not to the north, Wales or Scotland but to Worthing, to which it has no geographical link. That is the kind of issue over which the Government have total control. They are in charge and should make sure that what happens is in accordance with the longer-term programmes that they are trying to develop on housing. I would like to know why such issues, notwithstanding the Lyons review, have still not been addressed. I would be grateful if my noble friend could check it out and write to me, as, I guess, she will not be able to respond directly today. Those of us with an interest in developing the housing programme may want to return to the issue. I am trying to be positive and find solutions, rather than simply being critical of the policies before us. However, I want to say a few words that will be in a critical vein about the way in which wider social consequences are arising from the push in certain locations to build as fast as possible. I declare an interest: I live in Brighton, where a planning application has been lodged for the construction of a massive mixed but mainly residential complex in Brighton marina. It will comprise residential blocks of between nine and 15 storeys, with a skyscraper of 42 storeys over the top of it all. I used to live in the marina, but I left there four years ago because I felt that it was becoming too congested. There are now nearly 900 homes there, but the proposed development will add nearly 1,000 extra, more than doubling the population in an already congested space. The only saving grace is that a figure approaching 400 of the proposed new houses and flats will be used for affordable homes. However, I believe—I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market—that the majority of the other apartments will go as second homes. One way or another, we will have to address the issue. Much of the new building that is taking place in many parts of the south-east is not for the most deserving people but for second home owners. That is not the end of the story of the marina. There is another marina application in the pipeline. It is a plan to relocate and rebuild the Asda supermarket that is already there and provide another 545 flats on top of that. Beyond that, a planning application for 200 to 300 extra homes in the marina village is also expected. That is simply not sustainable in such a confined space. The council believes that the residents will use bicycles, not cars. My experience is that, regrettable though it may be, most people who have second homes travel to those second homes with their family in a car, not on public transport. If those applications go through, we will be building up great problems for the future. I raised the marina example today for two reasons. It illustrates the kind of problem that we are increasingly encountering with the building programme. Brighton has been famed for its pavilion and its beautiful Regency squares and crescents. The most marvellous example is the Kemptown conservation area immediately adjacent to and in the shadow of the proposed new skyscraper. Secondly, the House has a direct interest. It established a Select Committee to examine the original Brighton Marina Bill; I have a copy of it here. Your Lordships were satisfied that numerous conditions controlling development were adequate, particularly those limiting buildings to below the level of the cliffs so that they did not interfere with the character or environment of Brighton. Since then, the buildings in the marina have been strictly limited to four storeys. It is true that there is a clause in the Act that allows for some flexibility for the erection of other minor structures, but what the council is now proposing in conjunction with a building speculator flies in the face of what this House and the Commons wanted at that time. I hope that we will not proceed along those lines. Certainly, I would anticipate that there will be attempts to make sure that the council, at least if it wants to proceed, brings the Act back to Parliament to seek to amend it here and not outside the confines of Westminster Palace.