THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEW HOUSING

  1.  In his statement of 18 July 2002, the Deputy Prime Minister proposed a series of measures to address a number of problems related to a shortfall in new housing provision against the targets set for London and the wider South East.

  2.  One of these measures related to the four regional growth areas identified in the Regional Planning Guidance for South East England (RPG9). To quote:

Secondly, I will accelerate the existing proposals for significant growth in the four growth areas identified in regional planning guidance for the south-east. Two years ago, I asked for reports to be prepared on the potential growth in the Thames Gateway, Ashford, the Milton Keynes area and the London-Stansted-Cambridge area. Those studies are complete or nearing completion and they show how economic development will increase the number of homes we need. Over the coming months, taking account of those studies, I will work with regional and local partners in each of the four areas to establish where, at what scale and how quickly that growth can be achieved. Overall, we estimate that at least 200,000 new homes can be created in those growth areas.

  3.  Since the above statement was made the study for the Milton Keynes & South Midlands sub-region has been completed, and was formally launched on Wednesday 18 September.

  4.  The Study sets out a number of Options for growth to 2031, in a sub-region that covers the whole of Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, plus Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale District in Buckinghamshire.

  5.  Up to 370,000 new homes are suggested in all—some three times the number represented by current housing supply (outstanding planning permissions, plan allocations and so on) in the sub-region.

  6.  On the face of it, the Study might therefore be regarded as a very positive response to the kind of problems that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to in his July statement.

  7.  However, in the County Council's view it would be wrong to place too much reliance on this Study as any kind of "quick fix" solution to the current problems of housing supply, affordability or recruitment.

  8.  The reason for this is the lead-time for any additional development in the Milton Keynes area to be brought on stream. To quote from the Study itself:

4.62  An important issue which we have needed to consider early in the Study is that of time frame. There are RPGs and development plans with different end dates and sufficient commitments (a mix of planning permissions and local plan allocations) to last for at least another ten years...We have had to take a view on when the planning "oil tanker" can begin to be turned—that is, when can new policy directions realistically make a meaningful impact on patterns of development.

4.63  Our view is that waiting to 2016 or later is too late. On the other hand, implying that new policies can "bite", say, by 2006 is not realistic, both looking at the level of commitments and the time it will take for any reviews of RPG (informed by this Study) to take effect. We have therefore settled on 2011 as the date from which new patterns of growth could begin to be put in place.

  9.  The County Council would certainly subscribe to the above analysis in so far as the Buckinghamshire section of the sub-region is concerned. The present County Structure Plan already requires a further 20,000 homes to be provided in Milton Keynes Borough over the next 10 years, with the required annual average rate of construction being well above that which is presently being achieved. The allocation of yet more housing to Milton Keynes is thus highly unlikely to have any effect on increasing housing completions before 2011.

  10.  Although the County Council is not in a position to comment on the situation in the other three growth areas of the Greater South East, experience in the Milton Keynes area and the analysis undertaken for this particular sub-regional growth study would therefore suggest that alternative actions need to be taken if the objective is to increase the rate of housing provision during the present decade.

  11.  It is understood that the Select Committee may already have been provided with a copy of a report entitled "Housing Supply in the South East", prepared for the October 2002 meeting of the Planning Committee of the South East England Regional Assembly. Many excellent suggestions are made in that report for tackling the present downturn in housing supply and the problems related thereto—suggestions which, moreover, would be of much wider and more immediate application than further major growth at Milton Keynes.

  12.  The Committee is accordingly asked to give detailed consideration to the actions suggested in that report, during the course of their investigations.

  The extent to which decisions relating to housing, including numbers, tenure and density, should be taken by central and local government.

  13.  Whilst central government undoubtedly has a clear interest in ensuring the adequate provision of new housing, proper provision for consultation and debate at the local level before any new numbers are confirmed must form part of the process.

  14.  In that context, the County Council is particularly concerned that arrangements presently under consideration for taking forward the Milton Keynes & South Midlands sub-regional growth study (refer above) may not provide for the level of engagement and debate with the community that is to be desired.

  15.  In their original conception, the growth studies were to be carried out to inform the review and roll forward of RPGs in the South East and adjoining regions.

  16.  However, more recent events (notably the Deputy Prime Minister's statement of 18 July and the keynote address by the Housing, Planning & Regeneration Minister at the launch of the Milton Keynes & South Midlands Study on 18 September) have suggested that a much faster timetable is now envisaged.

  17.  The County Council is concerned that such apparent haste is not only ill founded so far as this particular sub-regional growth study is concerned (for reasons outlined previously) but also carries the risk that consultation and debate will be marginalised, or confined to the details of new development provision with little consideration of the more substantive issues. As such an approach can only be expected to cause problems and delay later on in the process, particularly if legal actions are involved, it may well prove to be counter-productive.

  18.  As is now the case with Regional Planning Guidance itself, it is the County Council's view that adequate provision should be made for public consultation on these studies, followed by an independent Public Examination (of short duration), before any key decisions are taken regarding their implementation. This should preferably culminate in the publication of sub-regional Planning Guidance, of the type already in existence for Thames Gateway.

  19.  The above concerns have already been lodged with the Government Office and the Regional Assembly and the County Council is presently awaiting the outcome.