– in the House of Commons at 6:48 pm on 18 March 2009.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the proposed eco-town at Ford, which would lie in my constituency and should it be given the go-ahead, in the constituency of my hon. Friend Mr. Gibb. It is a proposal for 5,000 new houses, and the size of that development means that the settlement would dwarf any of the existing settlements in my very rural constituency of Arundel and South Downs.
I have three key concerns about this proposal, which are widely shared by the local community and by the elected local authorities. The concerns are: the impact on the countryside and the rural character of the area; whether we have adequate infrastructure to support development on this scale; and the democratic issue—whether there is consent, whether people are being properly consulted and who should decide where development should go.
First, I shall talk about the impact on the countryside. I do not know whether the Minister has been to this part of the world, but Ford is a tiny village that lies in the Arun valley, below Arundel, which is a stunning location sited on the edge of the south downs. The Ford eco-town would be very close to an area of outstanding natural beauty and potentially a national park if the Government were to give it the go-ahead. Were an eco-town, effectively a new town of 5,000 houses, to be located at that site, it would clearly dwarf the existing hamlet of Ford and effectively join up small villages including Yapton and Climping. It would create what would amount to a new sprawl of development that would not just include the eco-town itself but begin to join the existing villages. At a stroke, open countryside would have been transformed into a suburban setting. That is unacceptable.
I was immensely concerned by how the developers sought to promote the development by arguing in their initial literature that it would be on a brownfield site. Yes, an airfield forms part of the site, but in fact 87 per cent. of the construction would be on greenfield land. The Government's own sustainability appraisal identified a number of key weaknesses in the Ford eco-town proposal, including the fact that the site is almost entirely greenfield and that there would be building on high-grade agricultural land—at a time, by the way, when we should probably be increasing food production in our country and worried about food security. The appraisal also stated that
"although the area is not designated there is still a potential to change the setting and character of local villages" such as those I have mentioned.
The flood risk also needs to be addressed, and the Government acknowledged that, too, as a key weakness in their sustainability appraisal. The appraisal acknowledges that, as a coastal area, Arun district is
"likely to experience some of the most severe impacts due to climate change", and that there is a particular risk to ground water supplies. In an era when we have to be concerned about climate change, those should be serious concerns.
The second category of objections that I wish to raise are those related to infrastructure. The developers originally told us that they would be able to spend £200 million on improving local infrastructure, of which, I should emphasise, we already have a significant deficit. We have very congested roads, including the A27, which is meant to be a coastal highway but is in fact a coastal car park. It is congested at key times, which I believe contributes significantly to the relative deprivation of Littlehampton and other coastal areas. Frankly, despite their proximity to London, the poor transport links of those areas have made them unable to share in the economic gains that other areas in the south-east have made in recent decades.
It is that absence of adequate infrastructure, even with the current level of housing, that is of particular concern to local authorities. Clearly an additional 5,000 houses would create a huge challenge, for instance through the additional cars on the roads, even if it is supposed that a proportion of those cars would not be used because of the nature of the eco-town proposal. I make no general comment on eco-towns; I am making site-specific objections to the Ford proposal.
The reality is that even in a city such as Brighton two thirds of households use cars, and that is in a city that is reputed to have exceptionally low car use. In my rural constituency there is 85 to 90 per cent. car ownership, and those who do not have cars are significantly disadvantaged. They cannot get about in rural West Sussex, even if they live in villages that are served by railway stations. I do not believe that the existence of a railway station at Ford—there is a question about whether it needs to be moved—is adequate mitigation against the loss of access that people would suffer if a new town were sited in the middle of the countryside, from where it is frankly unrealistic to expect them to be able to get around except by car. That is a major flaw in this particular scheme.
The Arundel bypass has been awaited for decades. At one stage, it was about to be put in the Government's programme, but it is now a distant prospect, which will not even start until 2016. According to West Sussex county council, the indications are that the bypass is being pushed back, not forwards. There is a genuine question about whether the eco-town would be viable without a bypass around Arundel, given all the additional traffic that it would generate. There is also a conflict between the Government's advisers, who said that it would be wrong to build a bypass, and the developers, who originally said that one would and should be built and that they would provide money for it. Now they say that the eco-town does not depend on the bypass.
It is impossible to conceive of siting a new settlement of 5,000 people without that upgrade in the key local road. It would mean major traffic congestion in the villages and in Arundel. That is a severe flaw in the scheme. Will the Government tell us whether plans for the Arundel bypass will be brought forward as part of the proposal for the eco-town?
There is a further discrepancy in some of the developers' infrastructure promises. They say that they will produce a waste facility, but it will clearly rely on importing enormous amounts of waste from outside the proposed new settlement. The sustainability of that is questionable. Where will the waste come from? The proposal is out of kilter with West Sussex county council's existing programme. It has invested massively in a new waste treatment plant in the north of the county, to which the county's household and municipal waste will be taken. Another flaw therefore lies at the heart of the proposal. Lorry movements into the eco-town will pose a significant challenge to the concept of an environmentally friendly development.
Let me deal with the democratic problem. The Government have effectively said that 11,500 houses are to be built in the Arun district in the next 20 years, and that figure was recently increased. It is a huge number for a rural district to absorb. We can argue about whether it is a proper number—my view is that it is an unsustainably large number of houses to seek to build in the district without creating major implications for infrastructure and the rural character of the area. Nevertheless, if that number of houses is to be accommodated because the Government say so, the local authority should decide where they are located. Arun district council has the knowledge and experience and can assess local opinion to make the difficult decisions about where the houses should be. There is a further question about whether eco-town numbers would add to the 11,500 or be subtracted from them. We cannot get a clear answer from the Government, and I should be grateful if the Minister felt able to provide one this evening.
There is huge public concern about the proposal. Thousands of people have marched and 10,000 have signed a petition to oppose the plans. The relevant local councils, all the parish councils, Arundel town council, the county council and, above all, Arun district council, oppose the scheme. Arun has to consult about it now as part of its local development framework process, but it initially expressed opposition to an eco-town. It should decide where development goes—I do not believe that it should be imposed on local people.
I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and me to discuss those issues before any decision is made. I hope that she will understand that the local concern about the issue is very great indeed. I fear that a significant part of my constituency is about to be irrevocably transformed, and I cannot overestimate to the right hon. Lady the seriousness of the issue or how it is regarded locally.
I would be very grateful if the right hon. Lady agreed to meet us. Indeed, we have written to ask whether that would be possible. However, I made an error in writing to her by omitting to mention that we briefly met the former Minister for Housing, Caroline Flint, which was most welcome. She made a brief visit to the constituency, but we would nevertheless be extremely grateful if the current Minister for Housing agreed to meet us to discuss our concerns, in particular those about the latest assessment of the scheme's financial viability.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise those concerns about the proposed development on behalf of almost every constituent who has written to me. There has been near unanimous opposition to the scheme. That is what I wish to relay to the Government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend Nick Herbert for securing this debate and for setting out the concerns about the proposed Ford eco-town so well.
There is almost unanimous opposition to the proposal to build 5,000 homes on a pristine piece of Sussex countryside that links the beautiful historic town of Arundel to the River Arun and the spectacular marinas and beaches of the seaside town of Littlehampton in my constituency. People are angry about the proposal because it takes a top-down approach to planning, as my hon. Friend said, that completely circumvents the planning processes and the views and experience of local people and elected councillors.
The draft planning policy statement breaks precedent by being site-specific, instead of setting out general principles. As the chairman of the South East England regional assembly has said:
"The principle and location of eco-towns should be considered through normal development plan process, and the PPS and Eco-towns Programme should not supersede or over-ride local and regional plan-making."
It is also clear from the sustainability appraisal that a development at Ford will be far from ecologically friendly or sustainable. In particular, it is clear to anyone living in that part of West Sussex that life without a car is extremely difficult, as my hon. Friend set out so well. The proposals are vague about how people could live at Ford without a car. We already suffer from an incomplete A27, which turns into a single-carriageway around Arundel and Worthing, frequently creating traffic congestion at points during the day.
Arun district council has conducted two thorough select committee inquiries into the proposals. Among its many conclusions, the council has said that
"without a by-pass for Arundel, major development in this location would cause significant congestion on the strategic and local highway network, and the Council does not accept that car reduction measures would be sufficient to mitigate this impact acceptably".
Similarly, the A259, which runs from east to west in my constituency, is already congested for long periods at peak times. Cars from 5,000 houses would simply compound that problem. There is also a lack of clarity about whether the small railway station at Ford will be moved west and about whether it will have parking for 500 cars.
Clearly some people will make money by turning agricultural land worth £4,000 an acre into building land worth £1 million an acre. As my hon. Friend said, 87 per cent. of the land is pristine, high-quality agricultural land. Even with that cash, however, we do not believe that it will be possible to deliver the three new schools, the social housing, the water recycling, the energy system, the new roads, the new bypass or the bunding for the river to protect against flooding that appear to have been promised at one time or another in this process. The financial viability study concluded at page 34 that
"there are material uncertainties over the nature and cost of transport solutions required to meet Highways Agency requirements, small movements in the cost of which could adversely impact the viability of this proposal."
People in my constituency are not nimbies. We understand the need for new housing, but in numbers and in locations that are sensitive to the environment in which we live and which are based on decisions taken locally by elected councillors sensitive to the views of the people whom they represent and sensitive to the fact that tourism is still a large employer in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. That stretch of countryside is key to the beauty of the area and the attractiveness of both seaside towns for tourists. As the select committee concluded:
"The Eco-Town would have a significant and damaging impact on the existing community, and would result in a substantial adverse change in the character of the District and this part of the coastal plain."
A campaign has sprung up, entitled Communities Against the Ford Eco-town—CAFE—and my hon. Friend and I have been involved in it since the beginning. It has been highly effective in analysing the developers' proposals, the Government's planning policy statement and sustainability appraisal, and the financial viability study. On behalf of the whole community, I should like to thank Derek Waller, Terry Knott, Vicky Newman, Tom Sawyer and Susan West, among others, for the fantastic job that they have done in revealing all the many flaws in the proposals for an eco-town at Ford. The Minister's time would be well spent if she personally read their submissions and, as a consequence, dropped Ford from the list of eco-towns.
I congratulate Nick Herbert on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity that it offers to set the record straight on a number of the points that he raised. I should also say at the outset that I have received his request for a meeting with him and Mr. Gibb, and I am happy to agree to that. I hope that that will give us an opportunity to explore these matters in continuing depth.
First, I want to remind the House of the general principles behind eco-towns, before I turn to the specifics of the Ford proposal. By now, everyone should be familiar with the long-term need for more housing in the country. The most recent projections, produced only a few days ago by the UK statistics authority, serve only to underline and reinforce that case. The number of households is now predicted to grow to 27.8 million by 2031—an increase of 6.3 million even over the 2006 estimates. The House regularly debates the impact of the pressure on housing; we are all familiar with its effects. Families are unable to find suitable, affordable housing; young people are unable to take their first step on to the property ladder. We are also familiar with the need to build housing that responds to, and helps to, reduce the impact of climate change. Our housing currently makes up about a quarter of the UK's carbon emissions. That fact gets less publicity than some of the more glamorous venues, but it is infinitely more significant, particularly at the present time.
There is no single answer to any of these challenges. We will need co-ordinated efforts to increase supply and to raise standards for all new housing. Although there is no single answer, we can accelerate innovation and promote best practice through exemplar projects such as eco-towns, showing what is possible and what is achievable. Eco-towns are just one of the options that local authorities can choose to adopt when planning to meet the challenges in their area.
As my predecessors and I have repeatedly made clear, we are absolutely determined that only the best proposals will ultimately be taken forward. We have put in place a process for scrutinising and consulting on the proposals, and it is designed to be fair, rigorous and transparent. As requested, we have recently extended still further the deadline for consultation until
Before I turn to the specifics of the Ford proposal, I want to make it very clear indeed that absolutely nothing that I say here tonight should be taken as any indication of the likely outcome for the proposal, or as pre-empting the shortlist. And of course, even were Ford or any of the proposals to make the final shortlist, they would still be subject to further testing through the planning process. That seems to be an aspect of the handling of this issue that is little understood. Ford is just one of a number of locations being considered for development of an eco-town. It is present in my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have an interest in another of them.
The proposal at Ford is for 5,000 homes, including 2,000 affordable homes, and it also proposes creating around 4,000 jobs, along with schools, green spaces, community and sports facilities. Such a proposal has the potential to make a significant contribution in an area where the shortage of affordable housing is particularly acute. In 2007-08, just 53 affordable housing units were completed in West Sussex—an increase, I might add, on 2006-07, but it is nowhere near adequate to meet local need.
When we meet, I will explain in detail why those figures are not correct, but the Minister should also know that, although the current recession is delaying them, 1,350 houses are waiting to be built, of which 40 per cent. will be social housing. That makes a significant contribution to people in the A, B and C categories on the Arun district housing waiting list.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always been a strong believer in evidence-based policy making, so I will look very closely at any evidence he puts before me. I recognise that Arun district council has recently made progress in developing its core strategy and, as both hon. Gentlemen will know, an eco-town is just one of the options being proposed and now consulted on for the area. The alternatives up for discussion are sustainable urban extensions or, indeed, expansion of inland villages. This process of consultation should help the local authority to determine the best solution to meet local need. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will continue to challenge the authority to maintain the momentum to build on recent progress and start to deliver results.
Both hon. Gentlemen asserted a number of reasons why Ford would be an unsuitable site for an eco-town. I note those concerns: these are, of course, the very issues that this process of consultation and scrutiny is designed to draw out. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned, the sustainable appraisal of the site has highlighted similar issues, particularly potential congestion on the surrounding road networks, but also the use of greenfield land and potential concerns about flooding. The sustainability appraisal also noted the potential strengths of the area, including the facts that there would be minimal impact on the local ecology and that the nearby railway station could expand to cope with increased demand.
Overall, Ford, like the majority of locations so far put forward, has been assessed as in category B—it might be suitable, subject to meeting specific planning and design objectives. It might be helpful for the sake of clarity if I said here that the concerns and objectives that have to be met differ with each set of proposals. But whatever they are, they have to be met with each set of proposals. The very point of this whole process is to evaluate all the evidence to make an informed decision, highlighting the weaknesses so that developers have a chance to address them.
We have always been clear that we are setting the standards very high and that not all the proposals will be successful. The sustainability appraisal, the consultation feedback, and a financial viability study will all help to inform decisions on the shortlist of locations that will be taken forward. I anticipate that that would be the start of the eco-towns programme, rather than the definitive list because I expect that, over time, more such proposals will come forward through the local and regional planning process.
Let me touch on two of the more general points that have been made: the suggestion that there has been a lack of consultation, and the suggestion that there has been an attempt to undermine the planning process. Neither of those assertions has any basis in fact. As I have said, we recently extended the consultation programme, and these proposals are absolutely not about imposing development on local communities. On the contrary, we take the view that it is vital for residents to have every opportunity to have their say, including those most in need of affordable housing, whose voices may be drowned out by a vocal and active opposition. We are making clear what is being proposed, and asking for views on the overall programme and the individual standards being set.
Let me repeat that all proposals that make the shortlist will still need to be tested through the existing planning process, and that that in itself offers a further opportunity for consultation and debate. In the recent judicial review, the judge noted that the Government had acted properly throughout, and dismissed the review on all grounds, saying
"the government is using, rather than outflanking, the planning system. This process would not necessarily compel the grant of planning permission for a location on the list."
Having quoted the judge's remarks, let me add that there are no done deals on Ford or any of the other proposed locations. Only those that meet our rigorous standards will be taken forward to the next stage as locations with the potential to be eco-towns.
I am conscious of the time, and I want to raise one more issue on which the hon. Gentleman specifically asked me to comment. If local authorities include an eco-town in their future housing plans, they can be assured that that will count towards future housing targets, which in many places are likely to be more stretching.
I want to say a few more words, if I may. If the hon. Gentleman still wants to intervene after that and if there is time, I will give way to him.
I repeat that only the authorities that make the cut—only those that meet rigorously high standards—will be proposed, and they will still need to go through the local planning process.
I hope that, whatever the outcome on the Ford proposal, we all agree that there is a critical need for more affordable housing in the area. I am encouraged by the information from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that other proposals are being considered, because such development is very necessary. It is not enough for people to reject the eco-town proposal out of hand. If it proves not to be the right answer, constructive alternative proposals will be needed.
In my view, the programme represents an exciting opportunity to meet housing need while making sustainable living attainable and affordable for everyone. I believe that it has tremendous potential, but I am determined that only the best proposals will be implemented.
I think we have about 30 seconds left. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—
House adjourned without Question put (