Eco Towns - Weston Otmoor

Cherwell District Council Debate 21 July - Bodicote House, Banbury. Come along at 6pm and demonstrate your views

Tony Baldry and local Councillor Tim Hallchurch will be supporting the Weston Front action group in opposing the development.

Cherwell District Council ruling Conservative Group has agreed unanimously to oppose the development and this has become CDC Policy as a priority. The leader of Cherwell District Council, Cllr Barry Wood also spoke against the proposal at the meeting in Weston on the Green in April.

Oxfordshire County Council debated a motion by Tim Hallchurch on 17th June that was overwhelmingly supported by a group except the Labour Group and advised the Cabinet to look at all aspects of the proposal and condemned the lack of consultation by Government before short listing Weston Otmoor. The Cabinet on 24th June voted unanimously to oppose the the proposal.

Despite advice from her civil servants, Ms Caroline Flint, the Housing and Planning Minster wrote to MPs as follows:

Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP

Minister for Housing and Planning

Department for Communities and Local Government

Eland House

Bressenden Place

London SW1E 5DU

Tel: 020 7944 8931

Fax: 020 7944 8953

E-Mail: caroline.flint@communities.gsi.gov.uk

www.communities.gov.uk

3 April 2008

We are today publishing the shortlist of eco-town locations going forward for further assessment and consultation and I wanted to write to give you some further background about the intended process and to enclose a copy of the consultation document – Eco-towns – Living a Greener Future.

The consultation document sets out how we are taking forward the eco-towns programme and includes the 15 shortlisted locations. These are the schemes that we consider have the most potential. We are looking for clear evidence that each location:

· achieves the highest possible environmental standards, not only mitigating the impact of development, but positively enhancing the site, as well as reducing the need for residents to rely on cars

· is clearly deliverable, with funding identified and proper management arrangements set out

· is affordable, with a clearly agreed basis for contributions from private investors and public sector agencies

The consultation document sets out the questions that we are seeking views on along with details on how to respond.

I thought it would also be useful to set out the four key stages of the eco-towns process:

· Stage One: Three month consultation on preliminary views on eco-town benefits and the shortlisted locations;

· Stage Two: Further consultation this summer on a Sustainability Appraisal, which provides a more detailed assessment of these locations, and a draft Planning Policy Statement.

· Stage Three: A decision on the final list of locations with the potential to be an eco-town and the publication of a final Planning Policy Statement, later this year.

· Stage Four: Like any other proposed development, individual schemes on the final shortlist will then need to submit planning applications which will be decided on the merits of the proposal.

Eco-towns are an opportunity to not only build much needed new homes but completely redesign our way of life to tackle and adapt to climate change. To assist you with any information requests please contact Henry Cleary on 020 7944 8850.

She also told MPs in a conference call on 3rd April that none of the selected locations were in the Green Belt. She had been obviously not read her brief as about one third of the proposed area is greenbelt land.

Thank you for the conference call briefing last Thursday. Clearly with so many colleagues taking part, there was limited opportunity to ask a number of questions.

I do have a number of questions relation to the Weston/Otmoor proposal, which I thought it might helpful to you and ask, although if it is more convenient, I will table a whole host of written PQs once the House returns.

As I understand it, the Government had initially had over 40 Ecotown proposals, which you then whittled down to the existing 15.

In respect of the Weston/Otmoor new town proposal, I would be grateful to know what were, and are, the criteria and factors relating to that proposal that caused you to include in the remaining 15, and not exclude as with a whole number of the other proposals.

You said that it would be Ministers who would decide the “at least ten” proposals for Ecotowns that would go forward to planning application stage.

What are the criteria or tests by which Ministers are going to decide which proposals to take forward?

During the conference call, I got the impression that this next phase was very much a phase of Ministers seeking to see the extent to which the developers still involved in this process are willing to put forward further benefits, i.e. more social housing, greater contributions to infrastructure costs, etc. In other words, this is a sort of large-scale Section 106 negotiation before the planning application stage. Am I correct in that surmise?

Where do proposals such as the Weston/Otmoor new town proposal fit it with any concept of Regional Spatial Strategy?

Will Regional Spatial Strategy be re-written after Ministers have decided which Ecotown proposals to take forward?

During the conference call you indicated that you would anticipate planning authorities determining any planning applications that come forward in due course in accord with the local development plan and the local development framework. Cherwell District Council is conscientiously working on its local development plan and framework, but is some distance away from completing and with the best will in the world, is unlikely to be able to complete it within the next few months. In these circumstances, are you anticipating including a Local Development Framework on Local Authorities? Or presenting them with a particular timetable in which they have to complete their local development framework and plan?

A development as large as Weston/Otmoor will have a considerable impact on the viability and vitality of neighbouring towns such as Bicester. To what extent are you going to give time for studies to be done of the likely impact of new town development on existing towns and settlements?

A new town development such as Weston/Otmoor is likely to contribute heavily to traffic congestion in and around Oxford – already a very heavily congested area. To what extent is there going to be time for studies to be done of the impact of such proposals?

Simply placing a railway station within the development will not mean that residents of any such new town will necessarily use the train.

In relation to railway and new station proposals, I assume that the Government is going to get confirmation from Network Rail and the operators, that such proposals are realistic and viable, and not simply aspirations by developers.

The initial Weston/Otmoor new town proposal includes within the land area Weston-on-the-Green air field, which is at present owned by the Ministry of Defence. Has the MOD agreed to sell that land to the developers?

There is at present no planning guidance in relation to how Local Authorities should consider Ecotown proposals. I understand that you are working up and preparing such guidance, presumably so that such guidance can be a “material consideration” if any Ecotown proposals in due course go to appeal before an Inspector. When do you expect to have such planning guidance in place?

There was some suggestion at one time that the Government would not take forward Ecotown proposals where they didn’t command the support of the local planning authority. Clearly from what you said in the conference call on Thursday, this is no longer the case, i.e. as I understand it, Ministers will decide the short list of “at least ten” to go forward to the stage of a planning application. Such planning application will be dealt with through the planning system. If the local planning authority turn down the planning application, the developer will be allowed to appeal to an Independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, and even if the Independent Inspector upholds the local planning authority’s decision to refuse planning permission, it will at that stage be open to Ministers to overturn the Inspector’s decision and grant planning permission to a new town development – locally we have some experience approach by Minister, on the way in which the Government dealt with the Bicester Accommodation Centre application where the former Deputy Prime Minister overturned an Independent Inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for the accommodation centre which was eventually aborted with a loss to the tax payer of some £23 million and, not surprisingly, an extremely critical Report by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee – but my basic point is that at every stage of the Ecotown new town proposals, it will be Ministers who either will take, or will be able to take decisions as to whether or not they go ahead.

I refer to the exchange that I had last week with the Leader of the House – a copy of which I enclose – and also the Answers to my Written Parliamentary Questions which were answered the following day.

One of my Parliamentary Questions was to ask whether you would place in the Library a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference of 3^rd April 2008 between yourself and those members whose constituencies contained short-listed Ecotowns.

It beggars belief that your Private Secretary and other officials would not have taken a very comprehensive record of the conference call that you had with myself and other Parliamentary colleagues.

In the circumstances, I find it disingenuous of you and disappointing that you pretend that no such record exists. It does nothing to inspire any confidence whatsoever in the integrity of the Ecotown planning process.

I strongly suspect that the reason why you are anxious that there should be no record of your conference call with myself and other Members of Parliament is that during that conference call you very clearly said “in terms” that none of these Ecotown proposals would be built on Green Belt land.

One of my further written Questions to you was to ask you “how many of these short-listed proposed Ecotowns contained Green Belt land and what percentage of Green Belt land each contains?” You could not bring yourself to give a straightforward answer to that question. You have given a complete non reply.

You say “in terms of development on the Green belt, I refer the Hon. Member to the Answer given to the Hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on 7^th May Official Report Column 1037 W. All the short-listed locations for Ecotowns are subject to consultation and further assessment.”

Doubtless the reason why you did not want to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question is that by now officials will have explained to you that some 25% of the proposed Weston/Otmoor Ecotown is proposed to be built on Green Belt land.

In a further Written Answer to me you say that the planning guidance for Ecotowns will be place specific.

Perhaps you could explain to me how place specific planning guidance is going to decree that Ecotowns can be substantially built on existing Green Belt.

I am copying this letter and the relevant Parliamentary replies to all those Parliamentary colleagues who took part in the conference call.

Eco Towns - statement by the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Planning

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) yesterday published a consultation document outlining a shortlist of 15 candidate sites for the construction of Eco-Towns. It follows the announcement earlier this year that the Government had received 57 bids from private development interests following the publication of its Eco-Town Prospectus. The consultation period on this document and the proposed sites continues until 30 June, after which the Government intends that up to 10 Eco-Towns from this shortlist will be identified, towards the end of 2008, with the first construction taking place as early as 2010.

Leader of Cherwell District Council, Cllr Barry Wood, said: "This announcement is a big deal for Cherwell District. We have already told the Government that we don't see how the roads and infrastructure will cope. We will play a leading role in the next round of consultation."

The Weston Otmoor Eco-Town proposal is to the west of junction 9 of the M40 motorway. The site area is approximately 800 hectares, extending from RAF Weston on the Green in the north to the Oxford-Bicester railway line in the south. Approximately one-third of the site, (south of the A34) lies within the Oxford Green Belt.

The Council considered the emerging schemes within Cherwell (Shipton on Cherwell and Weston Otmoor) at its Executive meeting on 18 February. Whilst recognising the wider issues surrounding the delivery of housing at a national level, the Council considered that Cherwell’s housing target as set out in the draft South East Plan represented a significant level of growth through the regeneration and development of existing towns. The potential of additional growth arising from the progression of an Eco-Town proposal within Cherwell would be very significant. It was recognised that the two candidate locations in the District did offer some advantages, such as the reuse of previously developed land and the potential to improve public transport links. But, there are many significant disadvantages associated with the proposals, including adverse effects on the character of the Green Belt, impact upon the strategic road network, effects on rural roads, impact on sites of nature conservation value, loss of agricultural land and impacts upon the regeneration of existing towns.

The location of the shortlisted Weston Otmoor proposal causes serious concern, not only in relation to the issues set out above, but also in relation to potential impacts on Bicester. The Weston scheme proposes a settlement in close proximity to the town and creates a potential threat to the planned growth and regeneration of that settlement where there are already issues of homes/jobs balance with a high level of out-commuting. Road infrastructure in the area north of Oxford, particularly in the A34 and M40 corridors is already under serious stress and the schemes are likely to increase this.

Reliance on free standing new settlements to accommodate growth is not an appropriate solution in Cherwell. It will threaten our existing towns and have significant impacts upon the rural area through the loss of greenfield land and an increased demand for travel, even if a significant proportion of trips are made by more sustainable modes. Cherwell is already home to the two largest towns in Oxfordshire; the addition of a further large settlement of at least 20,000 people would create a ‘top heavy’ settlement hierarchy concentrated in the north of the County.

The Government and other public agencies will now assess shortlisted sites by examining the component parts of each submission in further detail and a Sustainability Appraisal will also be carried out on each proposal. The Government also intends to publish a new draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) for Eco-Towns in July to provide further policy background.

All of the 15 potential sites are being promoted by private development interests and will be required to apply for planning permission in the usual way. The Government has emphasised that community involvement and partnership working with local authorities will also form part of this process.

The Government expects that proposals would be progressed through the normal development plan process and that many authorities have the policy framework in place to enable this. However, the Government does accept that there may need to be partial reviews of Regional Spatial Strategies (the Regional Plans) to achieve this.

It is not considered that new legislation will be required to bring forward Eco-Town proposals; however, the New Towns Act 1981 could be used to overcome particular land assembly or infrastructure issues.

Cllr Michael Gibbard, Cherwell's Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing added: "The Minister for Planning and Housing, Caroline Flint, has given assurance that the eco town will be subject to a planning application and full local consultation. However it is difficult to see how this proposal, one third of which is in the Green Belt, can ever meet the requirements of the Cherwell Local Plan and the Oxfordshire Structure Plan, being the key policies in our planning process. I am concerned that the Government's promised Planning Policy Statement on Eco Towns, to be published in July, will render our current policies ineffective."

“We receive the announcement about the Weston-on-the-Green proposed eco-town with considerable scepticism. We have two substantial fears:

Firstly, if this proposed eco-town was built, it would be as large as its rather older neighbour, Bicester, when completed. However, the Weston eco-town would be bright, shiny and new while Bicester would still be trying to come to terms with its huge housing growth, with a low-wage and low-skill economy that is severely under-developed and a town centre that is wholly inadequate for the size to which Bicester has been propelled.

Secondly, the developers promise huge infrastructure investment (parkway station, substantial rail investment, huge park & ride facility, a tram system around housing and to Oxford City, considerable affordable housing). Our initial calculations lead us to believe they simply do not stack up financially and this is something we need to explore very carefully.

In addition, we need to test the assumptions contained in the Weston-on-the -Green bid about environmentally-friendly policies and the extent to which these are realistic.”

Islip Parish Council is appalled at the prospect of a major new town being built in this part of Oxfordshire.

We believe this proposal has been put forward by developers and land owners as a means of circumventing the usual local planning requirements and we note and approve the opposition to it by both Cherwell District Council and Oxford County Council.

1. The development would create a new town adjacent to an enlarged Bicester and pave the way to a rural conurbation stretching from Bicester through Kidlington to Yarnton and Oxford.

2. Little regard appears to be paid to the Wendlebury Meads SSI which it would cover or to the Mansmoor Close SSI which it abuts. The developers clearly disregard the Oxford Green Belt into which it would intrude and care little for the loss of good agricultural land at a time of growing demand for food worldwide and the use of grain and oilseed crops for biofuel.

3. Essential services such as water supply, sewage disposal, energy supply, schools and health provision are already stretched in this area. A new town, despite its “eco” label, would put further, unacceptable strain on these essential requirements.

4. Ecotowns are intended to be largely self sufficient in infrastructure, particularly with regard to transport. The M40 / A34 junction is already a traffic bottleneck which would be even further congested by additional traffic from a town of the size proposed. Even if only half the intended families used a car there would be an additional 15,000 vehicle journeys each day. Minor roads would also suffer severe overloading. The B4027 and the Otmoor Road from Bicester to Islip are congested even now at peak times. Islip, a village deep in the Green Belt, would suffer intolerably by motorists accessing the A40, North Oxford, the Hospitals at Headington and the overloaded A34.

We seek the support of all elected representatives and professional advisors in resisting the folly of planting a new town which would degrade still further the tranquillity in this part of rural Oxfordshire. Once approved and built the damage to our rural landscape and fragile village culture would be irreparable.

John Sargent, I believe sums up the feelings of most of us who live in the area.

Your document of 22 February 2008 refers. The proposed development site WG8 is part of our Parish (7 of the fields in the south east corner bordering on the railway). Our Council would like to register its strong opposition to any such development.

The site appears in places to intrude on the Oxford Green Belt, and, apart from the MOD’s air strip at Weston-on-the-Green, is wholly situated on greenfield agricultural land. To the south west it encroaches on a site of national importance for species rich-grassland, which, inter alia, would make any claims to ecological credentials a complete nonsense. Farmers in our Parish have advised us of their concerns over such a development affecting their drainage patterns. The community at large is deeply worried about the traffic such a development would inevitably engender on already crowded country roads, and makes the general observation that a proposal of this size and in such a location converts what is a rural environment into essentially an urban one. All this seems totally unnecessary given the plans in place for the ordered expansion of Bicester, which include additional provision for additional “affordable” accommodation within a properly prepared infrastructure.

There appears to us no merit whatsoever in this grandiose scheme whatever clever “benefits” are dreamt up to make it more palatable. It all seems to be about is a few farmers and a large development company wanting to destroy the much loved character of our local countryside to make large sums of money. We believe that it should have no place in your future plans for the District.

CHERWELL DISTRICT COUNCIL BRIEFING NOTE - ECO-TOWNS – LIVING A GREENER FUTURE

1.1 To provide a summary of the DCLG document; Eco-Towns – Living a Greener Future, published on 3 April that shortlists 15 candidate Eco-Town proposals.

2.1 The consultation period closes on 30 June. Following this, DCLG will consider the responses received and select a final list of up to 10 Eco-Town proposals later in 2008.

3.2 The selected communities should also demonstrate the application of environmental technologies, achieve high standards of design, develop travel plans, demonstrate community empowerment, crate a healthy and sustainable environment, develop an economic strategy and create additional green infrastructure.

4.1 All Eco-Town schemes will be the subject of a planning application and DCLG expects that most will be determined by the local planning authority. Any application must be determined in the context of the Planning policy framework.

4.2 The 15 shortlisted submissions will now be subject to a more detailed Sustainability Appraisal (SA); this will be published for consultation purposes in July.

4.3 A draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on Eco-Towns will also be published in July. This will set out the key assessment criteria and a refined list of potential locations; this could also include other alternative sites (currently not shortlisted) arising from the consideration of alternatives in the SA. Government statements on planning policy will be material considerations in the assessment of any proposal and this will include the new PPS.

4.4 Statutory development plans should provide the starting point for the assessment of any planning application; the Government considers that in some places, Eco-Town proposals are already in line with this framework. In those authorities where replacement development plans are some way off, Government considers that the evidence gathered in the preparation of the PPS will support the development of appropriate policies.

4.5 At a regional level, Government considers that relevant Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) already consider growth options that are compatible with Eco-Towns. In some instances, there will be partial reviews of other RSSs to re-examine housing numbers.

4.6 DCLG’s assessment of the shortlist will now continue by agreeing, clarifying and costing the infrastructure required, evaluating the proposed environmental technologies, assessing the delivery plan and receiving input from other public agencies, such as Department for Transport, DEFRA, Environment Agency, Natural England and the Highways Agency in relation to potential impacts and the implications for future public investment.

4.8 Successful proposals are expected to generate substantial benefits in relation to:

4.9 Scheme promoters are required to demonstrate a robust costs base and undertake further infrastructure assessment, the preparation of a transport assessment, housing market analysis and the appraisal of environmental technologies.

4.10 To assist in the review and assessment process, the Government is creating the Eco-Towns Challenge Panel; this body will liaise with bidders to refine their schemes and also provide support to local authorities in their assessment of the proposals. DCLG is emphasising a ‘partnership’ approach in its discussions with affected authorities.

5.1 As with New Towns previously, the Government considers that there is scope for Eco-Towns to contribute more to the provision of new infrastructure as land values are low within the shortlisted sites; it is assumed that infrastructure improvements will be secured through the s.106 process. As part of the assessment of the shortlisted sites, Government intends to bring together major infrastructure providers from the public and private sectors, together with local authorities to agree a robust list of infrastructure requirements that are properly costed.

5.2 Government has emphasised that it wishes to work with local authorities on the best approach to delivery through the creation of a partnership agreement. Government does not expect to introduce further statutory measures to bring forward Eco-Towns. Existing legislation contained within the New Towns Act 1981 could be used to deliver proposals in certain circumstances where land assembly or infrastructure provision is an issue, but this is not Government’s preferred approach.

5.3 It is expected that the newly created Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), a merger of English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation will play a significant leadership role.

The former chief executive of the British Urban Regeneration Association, John Walker, is to chair a panel of experts chosen to advise the Government on its eco-towns programme. Since leaving Bura, Walker has chaired the Central Milton Keynes Project Board, which is overseeing housing growth plans in Milton Keynes.

* Joanna Yarrow - TV presenter, and founder of sustainability company Beyond Green

The Bicester Advertiser has done a rather nice collage of photos in their "video" view of the Weston Otmoor project. It can be seen by clicking on the link below.

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): In the dying days of any Government, Ministers think that they need to introduce initiatives to keep the media at bay. Before the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) trucked off to the Treasury to explain how the Government are raiding money from one group of poor people to fund another, she came up with what she thought was a whizz-bang idea for eco-towns. She thought that eco-towns had everything—they were green and gave the impression that the Government were building more affordable housing on brownfield sites.

The difficulty is that eco-town programmes have absolutely no public participation. I have with me the 2008-11 regional housing strategy for the south-east in which there is absolutely no mention of any eco-town. That strategy was developed by the Government office for the south-east, the Housing Corporation, South East England Development Agency, English Partnerships and every local authority in the south-east. How in God’s name is anyone meant to plan anything and involve local people in a bottom-up planning system, if suddenly the Government come along and say, “Hey guys, we’re going to impose on you a number of so-called eco-towns”?

Eco-towns are just that—towns. The one proposed in my constituency, Weston Otmoor, will be larger than Bicester, which is already one of the fastest growing towns in the UK. If it is built, the Weston Otmoor eco-town will be home to 25,000 people, growing eventually to 35,000, with 10 schools—two secondary and eight primary—and 15,500 properties. Apart from the fact that such a development might well undermine the vitality and viability of a town such as Bicester, it seems bizarre that it is to be imposed by Ministers with no local consultation or involvement. Effectively, developers bought options on land, produced pretty maps and said to the Department for Communities and Local Government, “Give us a run on this.”

In fact, the only brownfield land on that site consists of a former RAF airstrip still used for adventure training and parachute jumps by the RAF. The developers have not even secured it, and some 25 per cent. of the site is green-belt land. It straddles a main road, over which developers have proposed to build something like the Ponte Vecchio—they say—with shops that will go over the A34. It is absolutely crazy that the Government are threatening to develop a whole new town largely on green-belt land, and on very little brownfield land, undermining the viability of one of the fastest growing towns in the UK—Bicester. Unsurprisingly, organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the local naturalist trust are aghast. The CPRE estimates that the development, if it goes ahead, will lead to at least 7,500 extra car movements a day on the A34 and M40.

I can never persuade Ministers to visit my constituency, which I really do not understand—it must have something to do with my aftershave. However, I would welcome a visit from the Minister to the site of the proposed eco-town. He would observe the congested A34 where it meets the slow-moving M40, and its nearest junctions—9 and 10—which are already a nightmare, as a result of traffic from the south coast and Southampton travelling towards Oxford. It takes a dogleg down the M40 and up towards Northampton. Those two junctions are congested, and begging meetings with transport Ministers have been held to discuss proposals to enhance them. The idea of putting a whole new town in the midst of that traffic congestion defies belief.

The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust is tearing its hair out in despair, because it is concerned that

“the scheme would result in the loss of one of its most important nationally-designated wildlife sites, threatening an ancient woodland site, a nature reserve and numerous protected and priority species.

For the proposed site includes Woodsides Meadow Nature Reserve, and other meadows owned and managed by BBOWT. The grassland habitats found at this site are extremely rare, supporting important species including orchids, snipe and curlew.”

“We just don’t understand how development that would result in damage to a nationally important, protected habitat can be called an ‘eco-town’.

It takes some skill to propose a massive new site on primarily greenfield land and sites of special scientific interest with the only brownfield land being a grass-covered runway, used by the RAF for parachute drops, that the developers have not even secured.

The involvement of local people in the proposal is absolutely zero, but that is the world in which we live. I hope that, in the dying days of this Government, Ministers will stop thinking up ideas and concentrate on sorting out the mess of last year’s Budget and the 10p rate, and back away from ideas about imposing 42 day’s detention on us. Successive Governments have developed a planning system that is not perfect, but which is at least plan-led and under which local people have the opportunity to make contributions at different stages, leading to local development plans and regional spatial strategies. In these eco-town proposals, Ministers are threatening to overthrow, undermine and destroy all of that. Why on earth should any local authority or councillor make any
22 Apr 2008 : Column 387WH
contribution to the development of things such as the regional spatial strategy when Ministers who just want a headline dream up eco-towns?

. . . I would like to refer to what I thought was the most important intervention today, by the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes. I am paraphrasing somewhat, but he said that sustainability is dependent on “buy-in” from the local people. I could not agree more; I absolutely agree with that. It is incredibly important that to have housing development with a full buy-in from local people. If we do not have that, any development is unsustainable. The views of the local community are incredibly important and they need to be a key part of the whole planning process.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he does so with his usual courtesy. In the light of the comments that he has just made, can he give me an undertaking that, if Oxford county council, Cherwell district council and the local community all come down against the proposed “eco-town” of Weston Otmoor, it will not go ahead?

Mr. Wright: In his contribution to the debate, the hon. Gentleman made an important point about eco-towns. He was trying to hint strongly—passionately, if I may say so—that we have somehow dictated that eco-towns would be built without any public consultation and without any due regard for the planning framework and process at all. If he will allow me, I come on to discuss how eco-towns fit into the whole planning process, because it is a very important issue.

In the time available to me, I am not able to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made about eco-towns. Needless to say, this is the first stage of the process, and it will be completely part of the planning process. However, I will write to him and respond to the points that he made. In conclusion, this is an important issue. We need to address housing needs and we need public consultation, but the debate must be sensible so that we have the homes that we need and deserve in this country.

Site Name	Region	Site Area (hectares)	Current Use	Number of Dwellings	Affordable Housing	Housing Affordability Pressure	Benefits	Constraints
Pennbury	EM	750	Greenfield/brownfield/surplus public sector	15,000	37.5%	High	Transport, energy solutions, community involvement.	Water and sewage capacity, contamination, biodiversity, archaeology, congestion on A6.
Manby	EM		Disused airfield	5,000	33	Very High	Away from areas of flood risk.	Drainage, transport links, ecology.
Curborough	WM	314	Disused airfield (part)	5,000	40%	Very High		Flooding, water treatment, transport, built heritage.
Middle Qunton	WM	240	Former MoD depot	6,000	33%	Very High	Zero carbon homes.	AONB, flood risk, built heritage, landscape.
Bordon-Whitehill	SE		Former MoD depot	5,500	36%	Very High		Transport, water and sewage treatment, flood risk, ecology.
Weston Otmoor	SE	800	MoD airstrip, greenfield	10,000-15,000	30%-33%	Extreme	Rail and public transport investment, traffic management measures.	Ecology, Green Belt, flood risk, water and sewerage capacity, transport, impact upon Bicester.

Ford	SE	350	Brownfield, former airfield	5,000	40%	Very High	Energy solutions, transport improvements, regeneration.	Flood risk, water resources, contamination, ecology, transport, landscape, built heritage.
St Austell	SW	750	Former mineral workings, former industrial land	5,000	30%-40%	Extreme	Regeneration	Drainage, groundwater, ecology, transport, landscape.
Rossington	Y&H	300	Brownfield	15,000	10%	Moderate	Regeneration	Water resources, sewage, contamination, transport, M18 improvement, built heritage, ecology.
Coltishall	E	260	Former airfield	5,000	40%	Very High	Zero carbon, green infrastructure	Water treatment, rail services, transport, ecology.
Hanley Grange	E	500	Greenfield	8,000	37.5%	Extreme		Water supply, drainage, ecology, transport, impact on A11, A505 and A1303, built heritage.

Marston	E		Greenfield, former mineral wokings	7,000-15,000	28%	High	Regeneration of former industrial sites	Flooding, water resources, ecology, transport, rail service improvement, built heritage.
North East Elsenham	E	265	Greenfield	5,000 min	30%	Extreme	Low carbon initiatives	Water resources, ecology, built heritage, transport.
Rushcliffe	EM		Brownfield			High	Regeneration, Environmental technology	Road and rail infrastructure, environment.
Leeds	Y&H		Brownfield			High	Regeneration	Road and rail infrastructure, environment.