---

House-building Programme

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has done us a great favour by introducing this debate today. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I thank her. I declare an interest as an elected member of a local authority. As time goes by it becomes increasingly apparent how complex the Government’s policy on sustainable communities has become and, as my noble friend Lord Lucas, in particular, pointed out, how centralised it is. Nobody believes that there is no requirement for additional housing—both the intermediate housing described by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and affordable housing. The need for affordable housing is due to the complete collapse of social housing provision in recent years. Fewer than 13,000 units of social housing were developed across the country in 2004. So the expectation that more than 200,000 new homes for both the private and social sectors can be achieved in each of the next 10 years, some of which will be in the affordable category, is beginning to look something of a chimera. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Maddock, and the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Cameron, have drawn attention to the terrible problems associated with rural housing at the moment. We have had several debates on the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans based on the Barker reports, but I do not believe that the Government have satisfied the concerns expressed continually about the impact of those objectives on both the countryside and the environment. Experience might suggest that no such plan has ever been implemented on such a scale before, and probably has little chance of being implemented now. But if it were implemented, what is the likely impact? The proposals for the south east raise immediate questions: the effect of building virtually one large urban sprawl along the M11 corridor, from London to Cambridge; the costs associated with such development and the required infrastructure; the impact of the expansion of Ashford, in Kent, and Milton Keynes, already sizeable urban areas; and the Thames Gateway, admittedly the most likely of the projects to be achievable, where literally hundreds of new homes are being created. These large areas of expansion present particular problems, in terms of creating communities from hundreds of families who neither know each other nor have any previous association with the area. This will be particularly true where significant amounts of key-worker housing is constructed, since the expectation of that will be not only that it will serve the needs of public service staff in the immediate areas, but that it will have to help out the problems of the south east and London as well. In each, there will be an overriding need for houses in which people actually want to live. The evidence that properties are now being built 40 to an acre, rather than the more traditional 25, means either that there has to be a large element of high-rise building, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, that the room sizes will be unduly small and poky. What about gardens, or communal open spaces? These will have to be sacrificed or considerably reduced. We know, however, that that is not what people want. They yearn to be able to swing a cat somewhere outside. They yearn for a space that they can call their own; a garden that is not overlooked by surrounding high-rise buildings. They want a property that is not identical to those all around—individuality rather than conformity and good imaginative design of houses, business accommodation and infrastructure facilities. Many other matters have been raised today. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has drawn attention to the fact that the Thames Gateway is being built on a flood plain. How is that matter being addressed? Is it just going to be left, so that when the area does flood, the residents can shrug their shoulders and paddle for dry land? How are they going to buy properties there if mortgage lenders of repute are not willing to fund them because of this risk? What about the infrastructure problems, both here and elsewhere, a subject raised especially by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield? Transport problems have been graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Transport is critical, not only to enable people to work within London and the wider south east but to have easy access to their homes. The south east’s water supply is already under threat. September’s rainfall was only 75 per cent of the long-term average. The reservoirs are at 51 per cent of capacity, and river flow is well below average. That is now. Where are the plans for increased water provision? More reservoirs will only add to the need for land take, but is there even any proposal for providing them? What about desalination plants—where are the plans for those? In reply to a question from my noble friend Baroness Trumpington earlier this year, the Minister seemed to imply that that was all for future discussion; that responsibility was being laid at the door of the water companies; that metering and other, unexplained initiatives would resolve the difficulties. Indeed, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was even more vague when I asked him a similar question earlier on. His reply implied that all would be fine, even if no one yet knew how. Is water to be imported along with oil and gas, so that we have to rely on other countries for our requirements? Are there plans to create an aquifer system that would enable water to be brought from the more abundantly supplied areas of the north and north west? Will the Minister start to tell us how these matters will be resolved? Many speakers have drawn attention to the absurdity of increasing the population of the south east even further and seeing the populations of the areas north of the Wash systematically being depleted. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, suggested that moving some businesses to the north and north west would help to solve that, although the noble Lord, Lord Best, was not at all happy about it. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to increase the desirability of the north and north west even further, particularly in employment terms, so that additional employment and housing are created there? I know that successful efforts have been made in some areas, but there are still large areas that relied on traditional industry and manufacturing that has now failed, and they need to be bolstered. The population there needs employment and improved housing. The non-urban areas of the north, north-west and north-east are among the most beautiful in our country, and considerable efforts are being made to improve at least some of the cities. However, much more needs to be done, especially where there is great concern over the demolition of property capable of rehabilitation. The Government have a target of 60 per cent new build on brownfield land, but it is just not happening. Accepting the Barker recommendations would take the brakes off building on the green belt and double the house-building target. It would just increase the huge skirt of concrete round our hollowed-out cities and destroy for ever the green and pleasant land that characterises this country. The Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I apologise for referring to him again—was always at pains to point out that only 6 per cent of land in England was termed as ““built-up areas””. That is not quite correct. The 1990 figures for standard statistical regions, which will have increased only in the past 15 years, show that, of the whole country, 10.7 per cent was deemed to be built-up. Current targets for the south east are already over 15 per cent. Apart from Yorkshire and Humberside, the south east is the most heavily built-up part of the country. It is here that the Government propose to add even greater pressure. It is therefore imperative not only that new development is concentrated on either small or large areas of brownfield land but that what is built is of high quality design. Design is one of the most important aspects. We all know of swaths of estates of identical houses or grotesque blocks that quickly become problem estates. One of the briefs for any new housing must be to ensure that that does not happen. It is essential that the Government not only listen to but respond to the innumerable concerns that have been raised today. The environment is under great threat, and the policies that we have discussed today have a major influence on it. There is no question that the need for housing is understood, but that housing must be constructed within the myriad of other requirements that have to be met. If it is not, it will be worthless to the people who need it and in the context of the rationale that has been put forward for it.