1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  The Government's agenda for planning for sustainable housing and communities is central to Southend. The Borough Council had a lead role in developing and presenting the case for extending the Thames Gateway area to cover Southend and most of South Essex and as one of the towns invited by government to progress the urban renaissance agenda under the Government's 24 Towns and Cities initiative, Southend is well placed to make a key contribution to the inquiry.

  1.2  The Government acknowledged that Southend Borough had reached its capacity for growth as early as the 1980's. However, since then the Council has met its strategic housing provision and has established an impressive track record in achieving high density development on brownfield sites in this already densely populated area. Moreover, recent preliminary assessments by the Council indicate that the Borough can deliver over and above the agreed strategic housing provision, provided it is achieved as part of a sustainable development package and keeps the additional provision in line with the RPG9 and Structure Plan core strategies. Both these core strategies have established that the priority for the area is to address the structural deficiencies in the local economy, through measures aimed at sustainable regeneration, and to address the poor transport infrastructure serving the area which is not fit for purpose to meet current needs let alone those of 2021. Poor accessibility and transportation problems are a major barrier to new investment in Southend. Lifting the access constraints is seen as one of the single most beneficial actions that could be taken to promote economic regeneration and growth in Southend. The challenge for the Council, its stakeholders, the Thames Gateway Project and the Government is to ensure that the Borough contributes to the step change in housing delivery programme called for by the Government in line with these agreed strategic priorities which can only be delivered with complimentary improvements in transport infrastructure. Southend, therefore, is willing and able to be a test bed for this process in line with the RPG9 and Structure Plan core strategies.

2.  THE OVERALL SCALE OF HOUSE BUILDING REQUIRED

  2.1  In the 18th July statement, the Deputy Prime Minister insisted that "all local authorities deliver the housing numbers set out in Regional Planning Guidance" proposed to "accelerate the existing proposals for significant growth in the four growth areas identified" in the RPG9 and declared that "at least 200,000 new homes could be created in the growth areas." This introduces the Thames Gateway as a potential area for housing growth but it is set within the context of RPG9 housing provision. The requirement is to deliver 200,000 new homes (inclusive of all dwellings already in the development-planning pipeline, including those identified in the RPG9) to a faster time frame. It is a matter of accelerated delivery rather than an additional provision.

  2.2  The Vision statement for Thames Gateway South Essex was published in September 2001 to take forward the RPG9 core strategy. It identifies Southend's future role as the cultural and intellectual hub and a higher education centre of excellence for South Essex. The Essex and Southend on Sea Replacement Structure Plan, (April 2001) provides for 2,250 dwellings in Southend for the 1996-2011 period, amounting to an average of 150 dwellings per annum. This is set below the level of "locally generated housing requirement" reflecting the serious capacity constraints within the Borough. However, its proximity and accessibility to London has brought the area under development pressure from house builders, landowners and commuters to London both existing and potential.

  2.3  Southend's average completion rate for the 1996 to 2001 has been 119% of the strategic requirement. For the last two years it stood at 109% of the required rate. Housing delivery in Southend, therefore, has been over and above the RPG requirement. The failure to deliver at the rate required by the RPG, which prompted the Deputy Prime Minister's warning to intervene, is not an issue for the area.

  2.4  A proactive approach has been followed in Southend, in assessing the capacity of the area to respond to the wider strategic need facing Thames Gateway, though capacity studies, estimates, and contributions to the work initiated by the Thames Gateway Strategic Executive leading up to and following the 18th July statement.

3.  ARE THE PROPOSALS LIKELY TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE HOUSE PRICES

  3.1  Government proposals call for fast tracking housing delivery as a response to the excessive house prices in the South. However, the capacity of the house building industry to create a quick significant upturn in the number of housing starts and completions is heavily constrained. Recent work by Thames Gateway House Builders group identified a number of needs, including the need to start using innovative building material and techniques and the need to improve the construction skills base as barriers for an accelerated house building programme in the short run.

  3.2  Increasing the supply of housing is not an effective way to impose price equilibrium at a lower level. Government's own research (the relationship between house prices and land supply) has indicated that the relationship between house prices and land supply is too insignificant for a change in the delivery programmes to have a significant impact on house prices. Analysis of past house building, housing provision and house price data also fail to demonstrate any significant correlation between the supply of new dwellings and house prices. This is explained by the fact that:

—  The proportion of new dwellings is only a very small fraction of the total transactions in any given year and even a small fraction of the total number of the dwellings in any area.

—  Pent-up demand from the local population and the attraction of the area to ever-increasing demand from commuters/in-migrants would mean an increase in house building would be matched quickly by increased demand.

  3.3  Discouraging inflationary practices in the housing and mortgage markets and addressing issues underlying the excessive levels of in-migration to the South will have more effect on house prices in the South than any increase in supply. Research by the former DETR on the ability to achieve increased delivery of housing land in the RoSE area has some clear messages: (Housing in the South East: The inter-relationship between Supply, Demand and Land Use Policy, June 1999):

1.  Land take is sensitive to employment growth.

2.  Varying residential density will affect the demand for land, but is a less significant factor than the strength of overall economic activity.

4.  GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEW HOUSING, INCLUDING PLANS TO CONCENTRATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH EAST IN THE FOUR GROWTH AREAS

  4.1  RPG9 Core Strategy provides the key components of the spatial structure within the RPG area. It identifies Milton Keynes and Ashford as the two potential growth areas together with London-Stanstead-Cambridge area as an area for further investigation.

  4.2  In its response to the Stephen Crow report, the Government identified Thames Gateway, as an area, which could make a particular contribution to the housing delivery programme for the RPG9. The final RPG9 published in March 2001 sets out the housing provision for areas covering the Thames Gateway, with a clear knowledge of Local Authority and stakeholder responses to the proposal.

  4.3  In Southend a positive approach has been taken to the Government housing and planning agenda. The Borough responded fully to the Thames Gateway Strategic Executive (TGSE) work, both leading to and following the statement. The initial estimates of the TGSE indicates, that the area can make a significant contribution, provided the constraints which are barriers to developing sustainable communities in the area are fully addressed. The potential dwellings identified in the Thames Gateway area (about 95,000) amount to half the new dwelling number announced for all four growth areas. This includes 11,200 new dwellings in South Essex including 1,000 in Southend, for the period 2001-2016.

  4.4  The RPG9 sets out the pre-conditions for growth in the areas indicated in the RPG9. These require the growth areas to take a comprehensive plan-lead approach to development, ensuring jobs and homes increase in parallel and the necessary infrastructure is provided at the required time to create sustainable communities. These pre-conditions are even more crucial within the Thames Gateway South Essex area. In the context of South Essex this means:

—  The search for areas/localities with potential for urban renaissance and sustainable regeneration rather than searches for housing sites in isolation.

—  Understand the impacts, if new dwelling provision is to race ahead of regeneration thus both worsening the unsustainable levels of commuting and traffic congestion and exacerbating the unsustainable intra-regional imbalances.

—  Ensure affordable housing and key worker housing is central to housing delivery.

—  Recognise the potential of small sites in areas such as Southend where the large sites are at a premium. In this regard, the nature of site availability in parts of South Essex and associated constraints can be markedly different to that of North Kent.

—  Enhance the higher education and high-skilled employment offer to reverse the high level of net out migration of young people which has been taking place in the 1990's (According to the 2001 Census, the town had lost 29% of its 20-29 year olds).

—  Address the need to improve and upgrade the transport infrastructure, which is currently not fit for purpose. This is crucial to achieving regeneration in Southend and is one of the key objectives currently being addressed by the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership to achieve a step change in urban renaissance. This includes the potential need for a new strategic road access to Southend.

—  Address the need for community and social infrastructure. The primary care services are struggling to reach the recommended national GP standards of 1:2,000 and the site capacity of Southend hospital is found to be a major barrier to enhance the health service capacity.

—  Phase housing, employment and infrastructure provisions appropriately taking account of the prevailing deficiencies and the different lead-times and up-front costs.

—  Ensure the delivery mechanisms are selected/promoted for their ability to deliver plan-led regeneration leading to sustainable communities and not for their likely success in delivering new dwellings in isolation.

  4.5  The prevailing physical and environmental constraints and the unsustainable imbalance between jobs and houses, have led to the limits established statutorily on the future residential development in Southend. Southend's Urban Capacity Study is currently re-assessing the housing potential of the Borough to meet the needs of the area together with an assessment of these development constraints.

  4.6  As Lord Rooker stated at the House of Lords on 18 July, "The plans, projects and vision that exists in relation to the Thames Gateway, will not work if only housing is to be considered. They will not work without Thames Gateway crossings, and they will not work without infrastructure being put in place before work begins on the housing. People will not have to travel tens of miles from their homes to work. We need jobs and sustainable communities, not only amorphous housing estates; otherwise, we shall make the mistakes of the past." Government's assistance to fast track the plans relating to Southend's key regeneration sites and clusters (ie the University and innovation centre development, the Town Centre/Victoria Avenue area regeneration and much needed transport and social infrastructure), would address some of the prevailing barriers for increased housing provision. Strengthening the employment offer in the local economy and improving and upgrading the strategic and local transport infrastructure would help the area to bring forward latent residential potential of the Borough as well as to fast track planned residential development.

  4.7  Thames Gateway South Essex could be a showcase linear city based on urban renaissance principles. With the two railways, roads (A127 and A13) and river running in parallel, the London to Southend corridor provides one of the greatest opportunities for achieving a sustainable integrated rail, road and river policy to deliver significant transport improvements and improved accessibility in what is the largest urban conurbation in the East of England. If the pre-conditions for creating sustainable communities can be met, it could bring forward new areas such as the 74 hectare Shoebury New Ranges site to make a substantial contribution to both the housing provision and the sustainable regeneration.

  4.8  The achievability and desirability of the Government proposals are also dependent on two other significant issues:

—  Government's own house building data demonstrates that the slow down in delivery is an equally, if not a more significant issue in the social housing sector. For instance, none of the Southend's 102 completions for the 2000-01 period comes from the social housing sector.

—  Accelerating or enhancing the housing delivery programme in the South without essential complementary measures to address inter regional socio-economic imbalances would not have a lasting effect. Addressing the causes of migratory pressures on the South is an essential element of any solution.

  The scope of these problems and the solutions are far wider and more complex than just housing delivery.

5.  WHETHER THE PROPOSALS WILL PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WHILST AVOIDING POORLY DESIGNED URBAN SPRAWL

  5.1  Proposals for sustainable, high quality, well-planned communities in growth areas are the antidote to urban sprawl proposed in the 18 July statement. The statement further calls for better use of land, by improving design, increasing densities and using brownfield sites to the full and announces a public service agreement target aimed at protecting the valuable countryside around the towns and cities and in the green belt. These aims can be achieved if the proposed development is well planned and aimed at creating sustainable communities rather than housing sites.

  5.2  Southend has an excellent track record on achieving high density averaging 50 dwellings per hectare in housing development from 1996-2000. Density levels higher than 50 are achieved along the sea front and around the transport nodes. High density and high quality can go hand in hand if the quality is fully integrated from the outset. However, the design quality alone does not make high-density work. For high density living to work, the whole neighbourhood needs to be geared towards offering a sustainable urban life style. This calls for a much-enhanced offer in terms of local shopping, recreational, education, health and community facilities and supporting infrastructure. High density is a means to achieve sustainable settlements and not an end in itself. If the high-density dwellings are under occupied and the residents are forced to travel further to access the services and jobs, the density will contribute to the problem rather than to the solution.

  5.3  Creating sustainable communities is essentially a long term, multidisciplinary, and a complex task. The challenge for the Government is to ensure that the short term housing provision is fully integrated within a longer-term programme for creating sustainable communities. The 18th July statement did indicate an eminent announcement of a long-term programme, which will link policies on housing, planning, transport, education, health and regeneration. Government's new statement also needs to clarify the spatial framework, development principles, resource commitments and delivery mechanisms to address the physical, environmental, socio-economic and financial as well as procedural barriers to creating sustainable communities. These policy and delivery links must also be set in a clear time frame.

6.  PROPOSALS FOR NEW MILLENNIUM VILLAGES

  6.1  So far, the millennium villages have been confined to an experiment in built forms, construction techniques and layout to test and pilot innovative and more sustainable ways of building houses and living. This experiment, which is still in its infancy, has already made a valid contribution to the objective of minimising the environmental and resource impact of new housing. However, in terms of its capacity to deliver housing numbers and in terms of its applicability to the mainstream housing delivery programmes across the county its success so far has been somewhat limited.

  6.2  The time has come to extend the Millennium village to experiment to cover more ambitious and complex development models. Now there is a need to find more effective ways to create actual communities (towns and villages) rather than stand-alone Millennium sites. For that to happen it is necessary to experiment:

(i)  at a much larger scale and

(ii)  in a more integrated manner

  A much larger site fully integrated into the existing neighbourhood or as a co-ordinated development of more than one site within an area may be the model for the future. The model should have the capacity to involve all key stakeholders including the local communities. The sites and areas selected should offer the potential to create new life styles as well as innovative building styles, including ways of making high density work outside London and beyond the centre of large cities.

  6.3  Shoebury New Ranges could provide an ideal opportunity for such an experiment. The site constitutes 74 hectares of ex-MOD land within Southend. It is identified as a key Employment Site in the Replacement Borough Local Plan Issues Report and is located within the area eligible for Objective 2 funding. However, situated on the edge of a peninsula at the eastern end of the Borough its current transport links are poor. This added to the accessibility problems experienced by the Borough as a whole, requires significant transport infrastructure investment if the true potential of the site is to be realised. The Southend LTP identifies the need for a new highway and upgraded railway link to the site. The site is situated in an area, which has suffered, and continues to suffer from the effects of a declining industrial base, the associated unemployment, and community and regeneration problems. The area has benefited from SRB funding to tackle these economic issues. Integrating the New Ranges development with the regeneration of the existing community is the key challenge.

  6.4  At the southern edge of the area lies the 72-hectare Shoebury Old Ranges site, which gives testimony to the Borough's ability to bring forward a large and difficult site in a very short time frame. The MOD vacated the site in April 1998, and just four years later, phase 1 is nearing completion with 465 homes. 23,750 square metres business space, 600 square metres office space, a hotel, 5,900 square metres leisure space, 800 square metres retail space, 1,625 community use space, a school and a park land are planned. These are being delivered through a Joint Planning Brief developed in consultation with the local community.

  6.5  Shoebury could make a significant contribution to the Government efforts to increase and accelerate the housing provision in Thames Gateway if the wider development and transport accessibility constraints are addressed fully and the area is developed according to the sustainable development framework, which governs the Millennium villages concept.

7.  BALANCE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN HOUSING FOR SALE AND SOCIAL HOUSING

  7.1  The 18 July statement lacks clarity on the issues relating to the balance of new development between housing for sale and social housing. The PPG 3 and the Circular 6/98 define the term "affordable housing" to encompass both low-cost market and subsidised housing. The terms "low-cost market housing" and key worker housing still remain as ill-defined concepts. Despite the wide acceptance of the significance of tenure, it is still not a statutory matter for planning. The lack of clarity on terms and the inability to determine the mix of new housing provision have encumbered the local planning authorities with lengthy and ineffective negotiations with developers and with restricted ability to deliver what is required on the ground. New Guidance on these matters is long overdue.

  7.2  Depleting stock of social housing due to the combination of right to buy policies and declining social sector house building is a particularly crucial issue. At the local level it is also believed that the mismatch is manifested particularly in terms of family housing. In addition, the scale of the social housing mismatch in London is also affecting Southend and South Essex, where the relatively cheap bed and breakfast accommodation has been exploited by some London Boroughs to provide accommodation for their homeless and families in need. Discussions between the Borough, the ODPM and the RSL providers are being held at present, to find best means of addressing these issues.

  7.3  The high house prices are having a detrimental effect on public sector key worker recruitment and retention in areas such as Southend. The key worker recruitment issues are not confined to teachers, nurses and police officers. The Borough Council is currently relying on contract staff to provide services in key service areas such as Social Services and having to resort to repeated re-advertising in search of key staff in Planning and other key departments. The current key worker definitions and initiatives do not adequately respond to actual local needs and circumstances.

  7.4  In general, affordable housing has become one of the pressing problems in Southend. The number of households on the Council's Combined Housing Register has increased from 1,663 in September 1999 to 2,744 in September 2002, indicating a significant increase over the last three years. This is nearly twice the level of overall residual housing provision planned for the 2001 to 2011 period. The number of homeless has also grown. There are currently 90 families in bed and breakfast accommodation compared to 53 at the end of July 2001. A further 103 households awaiting permanent housing are in other forms of temporary accommodation including 60 families in hostels, 6 in refugee accommodation and 5 in Council accommodation, 23 in rent deposit and 9 in RSL leased properties. In addition to the issue of hardship the cost of this accommodation has to be met from the General Fund and the cost is rising.

  7.5  The Housing Needs Survey, which would underpin the assessment of the Borough's housing needs, is now nearing completion. In terms of survey responses the basic need assessed in the draft report amounts to an estimated annual shortfall of 1, 441 affordable homes. Whilst these figures need to be treated with care, they do illustrate the scale of the problem facing the area.

  7.6  The Joint Structure Plan housing provision for Southend for the period 1996-2011 is 2250 dwellings, an annual provision rate of 150. The Housing Corporation's Approved Development Plan has been able to supply just 214 dwellings during 1996-2001. The Council's ability to secure affordable housing through planning gain is severely restrained by the limited overall housing capacity in the Borough and the lack of sites which meet the Circular 6/98 site thresholds. The Borough, therefore, has started the preparation of an interim Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing to adopt new criteria reducing the site threshold and reviewing the target for affordable dwellings.

  7.7  Securing affordable dwellings through section 106 agreements is also constrained by competing needs to secure developer contributions for site remediation and infrastructure provision. Infrastructure constraints relating to the Shoebury Garrison (Old Ranges) site not only limited the element of affordable housing to 10% but also led to the need to reduce the total housing offer to 465 dwellings. Rather than the balance between market and social housing the issue is more about:

—  the prevailing constraints on the delivery of housing and achieving the full potential (including the full residential potential) of sites and;

—  the essentially limited capability of Section 106 as a delivery mechanism.

8.  EXTENT TO WHICH DECISIONS RELATING TO HOUSING, INCLUDING NUMBERS, TENURE AND DENSITY, SHOULD BE TAKEN BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

  8.1  The following needs to be read in relation to the detailed discussions and rationale contained in the sections above.

  Government should:

—  Recognise that real issues relating to housing and sustainable communities are more significant than a building programme.

—  Understand that urban renaissance is about existing areas where the scope for new development may mostly come from small sites. The rush to meet the targets can compromise the higher goals.

—  Determine the overall housing provision of the growth areas within a comprehensive strategic framework rather than in isolation. The best available approach is "Plan, Monitor and Manage."

—  Acknowledge the plan-led system, democratic process and the partnership approach is crucial to achieving sustainable communities in the diverse area of Thames Gateway.

  Local Authorities should:

—  Speed up the Local Plan reviews and start early implementation of key policy changes supporting accelerated and enhanced delivery, where appropriate, through SPGs, planning and development briefs and section 106 agreements etc.

—  Obtain greater clarity on the exact nature and scale housing and urban capacity constrained by infrastructure deficiencies and update and monitor urban capacity regularly.

—  Make better use of CPOs. Secure/develop better in-house skills, exploit skills available in partner organisations (ie RDAs) and have the political courage to use the CPOs where needed.

—  Acknowledge that the Green Belt is not sacrosanct.

—  Understand the necessity of improving the skill base and launch a skills development programme in Growth areas. External expertise should be used where appropriate but the longer term cost of over dependency on external expertise on issues, which are central to policy making and delivery can be high.