---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I should like to speak in support of new clauses 32 and 33, amendments Nos. 175, 229 and 233 and any other measures to increase the value of democracy and sustainability in the Bill. The Minister appeared to argue in Committee against limits on the powers of the Homes and Communities Agency, which seems to have extremely sweeping powers. Clause 3 is an extraordinary clause and defines the ““Principal powers”” of the HCA as the power to do"““anything it considers appropriate for the purposes of its objects or for purposes incidental to those purposes.””" That must be the most broadly drawn principal power ever seen in the House. The HCA also has powers to facilitate the development of land, to ““acquire land compulsorily”” and to"““dispose of land held by it in any way it considers appropriate.””" Those are major powers. However, the Minister said in Committee that restrictions were unnecessary, because"““Any development would have to be in accordance with the development plan.””––[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2008; c. 269.]" He said just now that local councils should still have a major role in place shaping, yet I fear that in having a national agency with such powers, as opposed to a local development agency, we may see local authorities' place-shaping and other powers being degraded. The question is: what kind of development plan will have to be conformed with? The Minister might be talking about the new local development frameworks, but I would not fancy putting one of those in the ring against the Homes and Communities Agency. He might also be talking about regional spatial strategies, which are now coming forward with a great deal of detail in local planning from unelected regional assemblies. In the south-west, we are in the latest stage of an almost endless consultathon, with the examination in public panel report, which has blithely dismissed some strongly held local views and is an example of how unelected quangos and Government-appointed inspectors can run away with their own sense of self-importance at the expense of local people's views. The examination in public panel report for the south-west describes land at"““the foot of Leckhampton Hill,””" next to my constituency,"““which marks part of the western extent of the Cotswolds and is a local beauty spot of some historical interest. There are panoramic views both to and from the hill which include views across part of the Leckhampton/Shurdington land and of Cheltenham itself. A large number of draft RSS representations relate to this land and the Panel is left in no doubt that the Hill and the views from it are an amenity much appreciated by local people.””" Yet four paragraphs later all those concerns and all that respect for the local area are blithely dismissed. The panel simply says:"““We are also content, from our own inspection of the area, that there is scope for sustainable development here without harm to the AONB, the outlook from Leckhampton Hill or to the local environment. Regional Flood Risk appraisal has cleared the way for any flooding issue to be addressed through later strategic flood risk appraisal.””" Presumably the panel did not see the area when it was all under water last July. Strongly held local views are being dismissed by such quangos after years of earlier consultation in which local elected and community representatives were more or less of one mind—strongly in favour of more social housing, more urban regeneration and more appropriate small developments around villages, whose shops, post offices and schools are dying through a lack of people, and in general opposed to urban extensions around already affluent towns such as Cheltenham. What do we get in draft after draft of the regional spatial strategy? We get urban extensions around already affluent towns, where, historically, large quantities of land have already been released over decades, with no discernable impact on relative house prices.