Housing and Regeneration Bill

I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart—in particular, the first part of it dealing with consultation and taking account of the views of local authorities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I think that this should be in the Bill, rather than just a probing amendment. I shall give the Committee a practical example of how things can go wrong if consultation does not take place. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and as a resident of south Warwickshire, where one of the so-called eco-towns will be situated, if they are ever built. I take issue with the term ““eco-town””, as did the noble Earl. It is a catch-all label used to make something a little bit greener when it may not necessarily be all that green. I prefer the term satellite commuter town, because that is really what they are. The noble Baroness will probably be aware that the proposals to build eco-towns—I am really speaking about the Long Marston eco-town in Warwickshire—have attracted strong local resentment and hostility at individual and local authority level. That is for all sorts of reasons, but the one I want to dwell on is the question of consultation raised in the amendment. The original proposal to create 15 new satellite community towns was never properly put out for consultation. The decision was taken without consultation. There was no consultation on the Government’s decision to have ““about five”” eco-towns—the position in one of their papers in May 2007. In September 2007, again without consultation, that was doubled to 10 eco-towns. There was no consultation on the selection of the 15 eco-towns on what is now called the shortlist, and no reasons were given as to why those 15 towns were chosen above any of the others listed. More importantly, and directly relevant to this amendment, the Government did not consult the relevant planning authorities or other statutory consultees on whether the selected sites complied with the statutory development plans. That seems absolutely extraordinary, which is why this part of the amendment should be in the Bill; otherwise, the HCA will simply be top-down and do whatever it wants, as covered in one of the earlier amendments. The noble Baroness may be aware—if not, she will be now—that both the relevant district councils, Stratford-Upon-Avon and Wychaven, voted unanimously about 10 days ago not to put forward for planning approval the proposal for an eco-town at Long Marston, which has been quaintly renamed Middle Quinton. How does that square with the obligations that the Government have set out in various codes of practice, in their statutory requirements and in the Cabinet’s code of practice on consultation; or with the Secretary of State’s claim in a press release on 20 May that, "““the selection of eco-towns””—" is— "““not a secretive process where decisions will be taken behind closed doors, but one that will be absolutely open and transparent … Is this a good location or not? What other facilities would the community need? Where should the transport links be placed? Your views on this are vital—because this is the future of your community we are talking about””?" That was the right honourable Caroline Flint. I am afraid that so far rather the reverse has happened with eco-towns. There has been no transparency and very little consultation. The Government, in their own planning policy paper, PPS 1, have said: "““More effective community development is a key element of the Government’s planning reforms. This is best achieved where there is early engagement””." We have not had early engagement; we have not any engagement. The same document says: "““Plans should be drawn up with community involvement and present a shared vision and strategy of how the area should develop to achieve more sustainable patterns of development””." That simply has not happened. I can currently speak only for the Middle Quinton development, but I know, having made contact with the subjects of other proposals, that people there feel equally out of the loop on government consultation. They have little information, and no visits from Ministers, to show them the disadvantages of these proposals. It is important to use this example to support the amendment, because the intentions may well be there but I am afraid that they do not seem to be happening in terms of facts on the ground. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to some of the concerns expressed, in particular about the lack of consultation over these so-called eco-towns. I also take this opportunity to add my voice to the request of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on the question of claw-back on the increased value of MoD land. Long Marston—or Middle Quinton, to give it its preferred name by the developers—is MoD land. I am sure that if it is developed, there will be a claw-back, but perhaps the noble Baroness could confirm for the record that the Government will get a cash benefit if MoD land is developed for eco-towns. However, is there not the faintest whiff of the banana republic about this? If the Government are going to benefit financially from giving developers planning permission in the teeth of strong local opposition, there is something a little strange about it; I shall not use the term ““banana republic””. It does not resonate terribly well with the people who are involved. With those words, I reiterate my support for the amendment and ask the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, to consider bringing it back on Report so that it is put into the Bill.