Housing and Regeneration Bill

I will check the first point. On the other point, of course local involvement counts. All the responses that we get from local authorities will be taken seriously. They are an important part of the debate, an important signifier, and will be taken into account. On the question of whether there will be eco-towns, we have said that there will be five by 2016 and up to 10 by 2010. That is where the policy sits. The point that I want to make is central to the debate as a whole. We need to go back to the principle that planning has always been an accommodation of local and national interests. We have in the HCA an opportunity for the first time to give local authorities a single point of contact—a single conversation. That means that throughout the process we listen very carefully to what people are saying. It cannot be otherwise. Back gardens are an equally sensitive issue. Simply, I cannot improve very much on what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. We have a special regard for all aspects of green space. PPS 17, which I am sure we will talk about, deals with planning for open spaces, sport and recreation, and sets out guidance and the expectation that local planning authorities will protect all open spaces that communities need. In PPS 3, on planning for housing, we have for the first time put a new emphasis on the importance of green spaces alongside the importance of access to gardens and housing developments. Nothing has changed for many years in the powers of local authorities to protect gardens. The classification of gardens as brownfield sites goes back to the 1990s. Local authorities have exactly the same powers that they have always had to draw up policies that protect gardens. PPS 3 gives local planning authorities even greater flexibility on the kind of housing that they wish to see in their areas. It strengthens the tools that local authorities already had under previous policy to turn down inappropriate developments on former residential or garden land. That means that local authorities can set strong and specific local policies that protect gardens in particular areas. For the first time, they can set brownfield targets that apply only to back gardens. They can separate them from other forms of brownfield sites such as derelict land, and can identify the need for gardens and other green spaces in plans for new developments. I do not dispute that there is a lot of pressure on local authorities these days, but any local authority worth its salt can draw up a specific policy for the protection of gardens, which many have done. There is nothing to stop them doing so. If we were to reclassify them, we would have to take issue with the whole notion of curtilage. I will not weary the Committee with why that is a problem. I am prepared to write a very long letter about the history of curtilage—the relationship between land and buildings—but all I can say is that if you try to reclassify it, you might end up with never being able to extend your house to build a granny annexe. It would cause a lot of problems for people who wanted to make responsible and appropriate changes. I take the point that local authorities must be challenged, if necessary, to take care of these sorts of issues. I shall deal with flood assessments and Amendment No. 77 at the same time. I have unusually harsh words for the amendment, which is a mixture of the unnecessary and the confusing. It is unnecessary because English Partnerships already performs this task and will continue to do so. The National Land Use Database aims to provide an inventory of the national stock of vacant and/or derelict land and buildings. Its objective is to provide a consistent and comprehensive up-to-date record of previously developed land and buildings in England that are available for development. I am glad to say that we already have this in hand. The amendment confuses the brownfield argument. Previously developed land is of course a priority for housing in PPS 3. We have exceeded our national targets. We had a target of the 60 per cent development of brownfield land, and we are now reaching 75 per cent, which is very good. That does not, however, mean using brownfield land at all costs. Developments may be more sustainable in greenfield sites. For example, if a hypothetical application comes in for a care home on a greenfield site at the edge of a market town, where the residents can walk to the local shops, bus station or whatever, there is an argument that that is a more sustainable and appropriate site than building a home on a brownfield site with no access to shops, services and community. So you cannot be categorical and say ““brownfield better; greenfield worse”” every time. That is the problem of categorising brownfield in this way.