Green Belt (Sutton Coldfield) (Hansard, 8 May 1996)

§ Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I have a number of reasons for discussing the subject of the green belt around Sutton Coldfield. There is enormous concern in my constituency about plans to change the green belt because, at the moment, no fewer than three major proposals have been put forward—two for industrial development and one for housing—involving more than 500 acres of land.

Ever since I was elected Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield in 1974, my constituency has faced the same perpetual problem. As it is situated on the outer edge of Birmingham, we are under constant pressure from development. As a result, in the past 20 years, housing and commercial and industrial development has taken place. Many of the fields that used to ring my constituency have disappeared with much of the open land.

No one could accuse Sutton Coldfield of not having had its fair share of development. I am not arguing a case of "not in my back yard", because much of my back yard has been developed already. Thanks to the tireless work of local councillors, the development that has taken place is acceptable. We have not had the unplanned, unattractive development such as has disfigured the outskirts of many midlands towns, but there is no question that development has occurred at a price.

The new houses have brought new pressures for services such as education. Each year, more pressure is put on schools in Sutton Coldfield, and each year children are threatened with the prospect of not finding places in schools in their area. Demand exceeds supply. Schools such as Arthur Terry, John Willmott, Fairfax and Plantsbrook face more demand than they can cope with. Bishop Vesey and Sutton girls school have 10 applicants for each place. There is no sign that the Birmingham education department plans to meet the extra demand by building a new school, although I believe that one is required.

In that context, I raise first the issue of the new houses that it is proposed should be built off Duttons lane. Although the council says that it is officially not green belt land, there is no question about the quality of the open space there. The briefest visit to my constituency and to that area will confirm the value and attractiveness of that open land. One of my constituents, Richard Harwood, has written to me saying that the plan would devastate the essential rural nature of the outlying districts. There is no question of this being 'in-fill development' or using land which could not be utilised for any other purpose. This is all an area which is used by many people from Sutton Coldfield and the surrounding area as a means of getting away from houses, traffic and other urban nuisances. At the present time, part of the land is used for farming and part for riding stables and at the weekends, the roads around are well used for people riding horses, cycling, jogging". Nevertheless, a plan has been brought forward that involves the construction of 500 extra homes. That will clearly not only destroy the open land, but place even greater pressure on already overcrowded schools. It is that kind of pressure and urban sprawl that I oppose. Although Duttons lane does not theoretically fit the council's green belt criteria, I shall help residents to oppose the proposal.

344 As to the 40 acres of land off Duttons lane, Birmingham council claims that no site is available for industrial development in the inner city. Regardless of whether that is true, the same cannot be said of housing sites. It would be far better to seek such sites in Birmingham, rather than always to push into the countryside.

My main intention this evening is to refer to two developments that undoubtedly threaten the green belt and the open land around Sutton Coldfield. I believe that they pose the biggest threat to the green belt in the 22 years for which I have represented the constituency. Minworth and Walmley face a twin challenge which, unless it is resisted successfully, will lead to the progressive destruction of the green belt.

I shall explain. In the search for industrial development sites, including sites for inward investment, two virtually adjoining sites have been proposed. The first comprises no fewer than 330 acres on one side of the Sutton Coldfield bypass around the village of Minworth. It has been advocated by Birmingham council as one of the sites to be developed. The second site is directly opposite, virtually adjoining it on the other side of the bypass. It covers 140 acres and is being proposed by P and O Properties. If that site were used, it would fill the remaining open space between the edge of Walmley and the bypass. The proposal from P and O Properties is that the land should be used for industrial development.

By any standards, these are massive developments—they cover almost 500 acres. Perhaps I might say why I, with my colleagues who represent Walmley on Birmingham council—Councillors Hudson, Birbeck and June Fuller—oppose the proposals.

There is no doubt that this is green belt land. It is not just a matter of official designation. I have seen some green belt land and wondered about the designation, but in this case any reasonable person would regard it as green belt land. It is good open land that is being farmed. If land such as that is simply taken over and used for factories, no green belt land is secure, and a precedent would be set for the land on both sides of the bypass around Sutton Coldfield. It would mean infilling for mile after mile up the edge of my constituency.

Such developments would obviously place extra strain on the services in Sutton Coldfield. I have already talked about education. If what I predict takes place, and even more development occurs, the inevitable result must be new pressures on schools in Sutton Coldfield without any plans for how the new needs are to be met. In addition, there would be pressures on all other services, including roads and transport.

Most important, there is no doubt about the strength of feeling about the proposals among residents of Sutton Coldfield. I have received dozens of letters protesting about the plans for industrial development. They are not standard letters, all worded the same, as is sometimes the case with protest movements. I have many letters written by different constituents who set out in their different and individual ways the case against the development.

I shall quote from two such letters. The first concerns the development around Minworth. It is written by a lady who has been a resident of Birmingham for 36 years. She says: 345 I have seen many changes, some great achievements for Birmingham eg. The National Exhibition Centre, the National Indoor Arena, Symphony Hall to name but a few, but I have also seen poor planning eg. tower block council dwellings, the Bull Ring (as it presently stands)". She says that the proposal is damaging and sets out a list of the reasons why.

The second letter—it is just an example and I have dozens of them—has been written by another lady to the director of planning. She says that she has lived in Walmley for 29 years and feels that it has seen too much development of green belt land. She says that she has lived at her present address—this must be the case for many people—only since September 1995, and that she was attracted to the property by the fact that it was a nice quiet estate with green fields at the end of the road and not an industrial eyesore. She was persuaded by the fact that she was given a categorical assurance that the green belt would remain secure and permanent.

I have given a flavour of some of the letters that I have received, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I have received dozens more about Duttons lane. Those quotations bring me to my main contention tonight. The proposal concerning the Minworth site is now open to public consultation—although there has been no consultation with me, as the Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield, prior to the announcement of the proposals—because that is what is required. The procedure will culminate in a recommendation to the planning committee of Birmingham council, probably later this month.

It should be emphasised that the majority owner of the Minworth land is Birmingham council itself, which owns 207 acres out of 330—so it is Birmingham council's proposal that the land should be used for industrial development. The land is owned by Birmingham council and it will benefit. The council has said that development of the site could give rise to major capital receipts. The decision that is required to be taken will be taken by Birmingham council. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, but the likeliest outcome is that the application will be approved.

The decision will come to the Department of the Environment and my hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The initial decision for the Department is not whether it is right or wrong for the development to go ahead, but whether to call the proposal in and to have a public inquiry so that the arguments can be independently explored and assessed. It is my basic contention that that must be done.

A public inquiry is necessary in respect of the land around Minworth and the land between Walmley and the bypass, of which the council is part owner. In other words, both sites, which together stretch to almost 500 acres in undoubted green belt land, require an independent check, and the expert check of an inquiry in which the public, the councillors and the Member of Parliament can put their points of view. It would be wrong for green belt land to be used up without any check. It would, in my view, be indefensible if the public who live near, overlook and enjoy the land were not to have the opportunity to put their point of view. That would be a denial of natural justice.

346 What argument is advanced in favour of the developments? The argument is that industrial development will bring jobs. I do not dispute that that could be the case, but it is important to recognise the constitutional and moral position. A company, however big and however important, cannot override planning laws or the intention to retain a green belt around our towns and cities. It would make a mockery of the whole green belt system if a company were able to say that a particular site was exactly the site that it had been looking for and that it required the site now. The public who live around the green belt have rights too. They have bought homes and made their decisions on the assurance that there was a green belt that would be upheld. In other words, the rights of my constituents must be protected too.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to give an assurance tonight that the application will be called in, for the very good reason that—as we debate the subject—he has not received any application, but my aim is to tell him how strongly local public opinion feels about the issue. There is concern and anger that the developments should be proposed at all. I am opposed to the developments and I believe that my constituents are predominantly opposed to them.What we want above all is an opportunity to put our case to an inquiry. It is the independence of an inquiry that matters and the skill of the inspector that matters.

The matter cannot be settled by a council that is the major owner of one site and part owner of another. The council advocates one course. That is its right, but it is not its right to decide without check the future of the land. Above all, I want a proper determination of green belt policy. I hope that, tonight, my hon. Friend the Minister will, at the very least, make a statement on the Government's determination that the green belt will be defended. If it is eroded and destroyed in the way that is proposed in my constituency, the future of green belt policy will be limited.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing the debate and thank him as well. He has used constituency examples of a frequently raised conundrum. Britain is a small island with areas that are relatively densely populated. We have a bright and growing economy, which leads to demands for growth in the housing, leisure and industrial sectors. There is also the demand that we jealously guard our precious green belt. That has been spelt out clearly by my right hon. Friend.

Much has been done to try to meet both demands. Much of the Department's approach to planning, urban regeneration and movement in the inner cities has taken that direction. The drive to re-use sites is incredible. Even Birmingham council, with its planning policy, has been persuaded to follow this line. I understand that about 50 per cent. of new houses in the Birmingham area are on re-used sites. That is encouraging. If we can persuade an authority like Birmingham to take that approach, there is hope for us all.

My right hon. Friend asked about our policy on green belts. It was set out clearly in planning policy guidance note No. 2 of January 1995. Furthermore, the west 347 midlands planning guidance, which was published in September 1995, strongly reaffirmed national green belt policy. It was made clear that there was no case for a fundamental review of the west midlands green belt. My right hon. Friend will be able to use that.

The guidance also proposed, as it were, that the region should be ready to provide up to two large sites for new industrial and commercial investment, each by a large multinational organisation, to the major benefit of the regional economy. The sites were to be of at least 50 hectares. I apologise for using metric measures. Perhaps it is a sign of my age or perhaps I am being a bit ambitious. The sites were to be in or adjacent to the metropolitan area or other large settlements. The guidance recognised that the sites might—I emphasise might—exceptionally need to be in whole or in part in the green belt.

As my right hon. Friend is almost certainly aware, there is a study in progress. It is being led by the West Midlands Forum of Local Authorities. The aim is to identify suitable general locations for the sites. We await the recommendations with interest. Any sites that are identified as a result of the study recommendations should come forward in development plans, which will be subject to the usual planning procedures of consultation, objection and public inquiry, for example.

My right hon. Friend has made clear—in effect, by heavy typing—his concern and that of his constituents about the proposals for major industrial development in the Minworth area of Sutton Coldfield. Residents in the area are, of course, concerned. That concern was expressed clearly and emphatically tonight.

We do not know yet whether the forum will recommend Minworth as a general location for major industrial development. If it does, it will have to surmount some major hurdles. We would consider the proposal very carefully against our national planning policy on green belts, and against the regional planning guidance for the west midlands, including the green belt. We would want to consider especially whether exceptional circumstances exist, and are so exceptional that they might justify development in the green belt. We would need to be certain that any development would not set a precedent for further development in the area, about which my right hon. Friend has warned.

348 We would expect Birmingham to amend its unitary development plan to incorporate any such development proposal. That would open it up to detailed scrutiny through the normal process of public consultation, objection and—as requested by my right hon. Friend—public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have power to direct modifications to the plan, or to call it in for his own decision.

If a planning application was made in the meantime for such a proposal, Birmingham city council would have to give local people the opportunity to comment, and would be unable to grant planning permission without referring it to us, because it would be a departure from its plan. We would have to consider very carefully, in the light of our own policies, Birmingham's plans, all the comments on the application—we have heard some pretty emphatic comments this evening—and whether it should be called in by the Secretary of State for his own decision. As my right hon. Friend suggested, I cannot go further than that at this stage.

My right hon. Friend touched on the planning application recently submitted for 500 houses on the land south of Duttons lane. I am afraid that I must confirm that the site is not in the green belt and is currently allocated for housing development in the unitary development plan, which has been through all the necessary procedures. There is only one small proviso, which is not particularly helpful—that the site should not be developed until 1997 at the earliest, but we are nearly there, of course.

I understand that Birmingham city council has not yet reached a view on the recent application, so at least that procedure must be gone through, and the application has not been referred to me. I can confirm, however—I consider this important—that the Government remain strongly committed to the preservation of an effective green belt in the west midlands to the east and north of Sutton Coldfield. Development in the green belt may take place only in exceptional circumstances, and the onus is on the proponents of the development to show that such circumstances exist. If a specific proposal for development is made, either within or outside the context of the forum study that is now in progress, we shall consider very carefully whether it should be called in for the Secretary of State's decision. I have certainly heard every word that has been said this evening, but at this stage I cannot say what the outcome will be.