We don't want Ford eco-town, says MP

MPs Nick Gibb and Nick Herbert made it clear to the government the proposals were unwanted in the area.

They secured a 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday to put the under-secretary of state for communities and local government Iain Wright on the spot about a scheme which could see at least 5,000 homes built on the former airfield site.

A decision is expected imminently which of the 57 proposals put forward around the country have made it on to a shortlist of ten.

Mr Gibb, the MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, said the eco-town was unwanted by residents and local councils.

'The minister should be clear there is widespread and fierce opposition to this proposal and the people in my constituency do not want the Ford eco-town to appear on the shortlist,' he said.

It was feared the development would be imposed upon local people. Consultation would only happen after the site had been decided, he claimed.

The Ford location had already been rejected by Arun District Council as a possible site for major development. Extending current towns was seen as a more sustainable option.

Ford lacked roads, with the A259 and A27 heavily congested, and the two eco-town proposals were merely hastily-rebadged schemes by property developers, he explained. Giving one of them the go-ahead could also damage the regeneration efforts in Bognor and Littlehamp-ton.

Arundel and South Downs MP Mr Herbert said: 'The proposal is absolutely not the way to achieve that regeneration '“ indeed, it might threaten it.

'There is significant and, perhaps to some, surprising deprivation along the south coast, which has been partly caused by the lack of infrastructure.

'The eco-town proposal would do nothing to address the issue. Indeed, it would be to the detriment of existing regeneration plans.'

He highlighted the '˜serious infrastructure deficit' of roads, schools and hospitals. He said: 'There appears to be a disconnection between, on the one hand, proposals for a very substantial increase in housing numbers and, on the other, a failure to upgrade infrastructure.'

But this would count for little if the government used the eco-town proposal to seriously subvert of normal planning process.

'There is an established planning framework for making such major decisions about housing. It is evidence-based, it includes a large number of stakeholders and the public, and it is subject to independent scrutiny.

'The eco-towns idea sits outside the system entirely, and it is misleading to say will be processed through the planning system. Effectively, the government wants to make the decision first and then consult the public,' he added.

Mr Wright countered there would be a considerable chance for consultation before the process is complete. Every opportunity would be taken to engage with local authorities and the public during that time to ensure all views are heard.

The details of the consultation process would be announced when the shortlist of selected schemes was revealed, he commented.

But he said the government was rigorously checking the eco-town proposals for potential problems of flood risk or scarcity of natural resources, and to consider their possible effects on the natural environment.

'In the case of eco-towns, we are looking for innovative proposals that will enhance our biodiversity,' said Mr Wright.