Housing and Regeneration Bill

My Lords, the amendment takes us back to those long wistful days in Committee but, wistful though they may have been, I am not sure that I can move the argument on that much further. We said in Committee that we felt that the amendment confused the brownfield argument. I think that it does, although I appreciate that it has been moved with good intent. Existing government policy is set out in planning policy statement 3. It provides that previously developed land—in particular, vacant and derelict sites and buildings—is the priority for housing development. I guess that we could all fairly readily agree to that. It also sets a national annual target that at least 60 per cent of housing should be provided on previously developed land. Again, we raised the threshold when we first came into government. It is perhaps worth adding, however, that this does not mean the development of brownfield land at any cost. Indeed, PPS 3 advises that there is no presumption that land that has been previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development. In some cases, a greenfield site near to transport, shops and jobs may make for a more sustainable community and be more sustainable in other ways than a brownfield site. As the past leader of an urban authority with a lot of green space hard up to the urban fringe, I can see some sense in that argument. Clearly, access by car to those areas where families are not close to local schools bears some fair consideration. The HCA will be as subject to the policy in PPS 3 as any other body is, so a statutory duty of the nature suggested in the amendment is unnecessary and could add inflexibility, which would not help us greatly. A blanket duty to promote previously developed land at any cost could be counterproductive and could inhibit the HCA in fulfilling some of its objectives. The amendment also refers to monitoring the use of brownfield land and would place a requirement on the agency to publish its findings. This part of the amendment is also unnecessary, as English Partnerships already has responsibility for the National Land Use Database for previously developed land. This responsibility will pass to the agency as a matter of course. The continuing management and development of the database is probably the practical solution to the problem that the amendment seeks to wrestle with and find an answer to. The database aims to provide an inventory of the national stock of vacant and derelict land and buildings, as well as of land and buildings in use with planning consent or the potential for redevelopment. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked some pertinent questions about this issue. All I can usefully say is that brownfield definitions are set out in considerable detail in PPS 3. I am more than happy to add to the fascinating volume of correspondence that the Bill has already generated by responding to his queries about the various distinctions—queries that were well made. I hope that that answers the points that have been made and I trust that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.