HC Deb 09 July 2003 vol 408 cc1343-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

11.1pm

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield)

I am enormously grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate on the Floor of the House. I should like, first and foremost, to congratulate the new Minister for Housing and Planning both on his promotion and on his elevation to the Privy Council a week or so ago. Those of us who form the brotherhood of Government Whips know how richly deserved his promotion is. Indeed, we have watched with great admiration the work that he did as Government Deputy Chief Whip, when he often displayed the cunning of a serpent and the guile of a fox. Indeed, we marvel at the Government's willingness to move him, especially in the light of last night's substantial revolt against their plans for foundation hospitals. It is particularly good of him, as the senior Minister with responsibility for planning, to respond to the debate.

I am very much aware that individual planning matters are not generally a matter for the local Member of Parliament, but rightly rest with the local council. I pay tribute to all nine of Sutton Coldfield's councillors, who work extremely hard on important and difficult matters to do with planning in Sutton Coldfield. I particularly pay tribute to David Roy, who until recently was leader of the opposition on Birmingham council and is one of Sutton's most senior councillors. He is a member of the planning committee and therefore acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. He is enormously experienced in planning matters, as is acknowledged across all the parties represented on Birmingham council.

Although planning is not usually a matter for the Member of Parliament, strategic planning issues are a different kettle of fish, and it is those that I want to discuss. I hope that the Minister accepts that I would not bring such matters before the House lightly. This is only the second Adjournment debate that I have sought and been awarded in the 12 years that I have been in the House of Commons. I do so first, because I believe that the issues that I want to raise are of far more than local significance, and secondly, because they are absolutely vital to the interests of my constituents.

As you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sutton Coldfield is a hugely attractive place in which to live. People aspire to live there, not least because of the very high quality of our housing, the real sense of community and the very desirable local environment. The heart of my job as Sutton's Member of Parliament is to maintain and enhance the quality of that environment. Of course, I do not seek to preserve Sutton in aspic and I am conscious that affordable housing is important not least because of the substantial increase in house prices that has occurred locally in recent years.

A pattern has developed: developers try to buy old houses with mature gardens and replace them with blocks of flats. That happened most recently in Lichfield road, Belwell lane, Tamworth road, Clarendon road and Welford road. I observed those developments with deep dismay. I found that my views were at least partly shared by the experienced planning team under Emrys Jones in Birmingham. They are widely shared by my constituents and the highly articulate and concerned local groups, such as the Little Sutton action group, that have sprung up. Their arguments are utterly persuasive and unanswerable. They are delivered politely, decently and correctly. They are right.

Replacing old houses with multiple dwellings has a tremendous effect on doctors' surgeries, schools, local facilities, cars, parking and our local roads. Each development may appear isolated at the time, but together, their effect is incalculable. We shall wake up one morning in Sutton Coldfield and find that the whole character of the town has changed and gone for ever if these piecemeal developments continue.

Against that background, two recent development proposals dramatically exemplify the problem. The first is in Jockey road, which is a major road in my constituency. Developers want to demolish five homes and replace them with 18 houses and six apartments. I had to rub my eyes in disbelief and check that it was not April fool's day when I heard about the second proposal. Monmouth Drive fronts on to Sutton's famous park. It was proposed to demolish four large Victorian villas with lovely mature gardens and replace them with 25 apartments in three blocks. There are many more such developments, which I have no time to mention. Proceeding with them would constitute a grotesque act of vandalism. After much local debate and concern, nearly all the proposals were rejected. Many will be the subject of appeal.

A proposal to demolish two beautiful detached houses in their own gardens on Four Oaks road, adjacent to the Four Oaks conservation area, was rejected, but the decision was overturned on appeal. The planners lost the battle, we lost the battle and 15 apartments were won on appeal at the end of last month. Every successful application encourages others in the immediate vicinity. The cumulative effect lies outside the consideration of the planning process, but it causes genuine concern.

As I said, almost all the vexatious applications have been turned down. However, in cases when the planning authority determines that a proposal is unacceptable, the applicant has the right of appeal. Far more often than is right, the applicant has the possibility of being granted planning permission. Those who object have no right of appeal. It is unfair that in planning matters, one side has recourse to an appeal mechanism if aggrieved by a decision, whereas the other side has no such right. There is no coherent reason for the appeal process in planning matters to be totally one sided.

It has been argued that allowing objectors to appeal would delay development and increase the costs of the prospective developer. I acknowledge that an even-handed appeal process would delay some developments. However, planning authorities can currently require archaeological studies of sites to be undertaken at the developer's cost. Such studies obviously cause some delay and additional cost, but are accepted as proper and appropriate.

Using the cost and delay argument to justify the current position is analogous to claiming that allowing appeals in the courts is unwarranted. We have many appeal and review processes because it is recognised that mistakes will sometimes be made in all fields of human endeavour. The glaring omission is the right of objectors to appeal against planning decisions.

The planning authority is ever mindful of the possibility of its decisions being challenged by prospective developers and of being charged with the legal costs of defending a successful appeal against the original decision to refuse planning consent. I have no doubt that that knowledge has an effect on some decisions that might be termed as marginal. It is human nature to err on the side of caution in such circumstances.

Planning policy guidance note 3, published on 7 March 2000, exacerbates the general problem that I have outlined. Paragraph 54 of PPG3 encourages making best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas. In areas such as Sutton Coldfield, it is arguable that those two requirements are mutually contradictory. The paragraph goes on to urge more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. I do not believe that what I am saying amounts to nimbyism. I understand what the Government are trying to achieve in respect of density, but we need a far more horses-for-courses approach to different areas. For example, I support the development in Brassington avenue, right in the heart of my constituency, which is sensible and will include 300 flats. It is near the station in the town centre and is an ideal place for such density. One of our local action groups against such developments has produced an excellent and expert publication called "Sutton Coldfield Under Threat". During the course of a well-argued document, which lists a number of deeply vexatious planning applications, the group draws attention to a proposal and photographs its site on Mere Green road in my constituency, where, on the site of a former filling station, a sensible planning application could be supported and go through. It needs further refinement, but my point is that where these proposals are right in principle, we will support them.

Contrast that with the destruction of old housing and gardens to open up back land—what developers describe as brown land. That is absolutely outside the spirit of what the Minister or I would ever define as brown land. If one journeys by train from Sutton Coldfield into the middle of Birmingham to New street, there is extensive evidence of what I mean by brown land and what I am sure the Minister would mean by it. It may not be as profitable for developers as carving flats out of Sutton Coldfield, but it is much more in keeping with the spirit of what we at Westminster intended brown land development to be.

Those infill developments should be massively discouraged. PPG3, paragraph 52, states: The Government attaches particular importance to the 'greening' of residential environments. Greening initiatives can enhance quality. That is absolutely right, but many of the developments sought, and some that have been granted, are contradictory to the greening of our environment.

I have the highest regard for the individual planning officers with whom I deal in my constituency, and life is made more difficult for them by the lack of neighbourhood plans. They have to rely on the broad policies contained with the city-wide unitary development plan. The UDP serves its purpose, but its purpose is that of a broad strategic view of a city of around 1 million people and it cannot adequately reflect the individual characteristics of the many neighbourhoods within Birmingham or Sutton Coldfield.

Our planning frameworks fail because the development of neighbourhood plans—with the active involvement of local residents, local voluntary groups and organisations and locally elected representatives—is not central to the process, but, as set out so clearly in PPG3, an optional addition that is consequently given low priority. The Government should change that.

We remain continually at risk from developers cherry-picking PPG3 and related planning law, pushing ever harder at precedent. Technical modifications may be made, winning support on appeal for applications that are wrong in principle and should never have got that far. The balance needs to be redressed in favour of our local communities. That is my central point.

PPG3, paragraph 55, suggests that Local planning authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type of residential environment they wish to see in their area and articulate this through their development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance. "Places for Living", a Birmingham document, states: The involvement of the Planning Authority, the local community and other relevant bodies at an early state would be advisable to speed up the decision making process and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. That is right, but it needs more Government involvement to make it a reality.

I hope that when the Minister visits the midlands, he will come to my constituency to meet some of our elected councillors arid some members of the groups most closely involved with all these matters, so that he can hear for himself and see the practical suggestions that we would wish to make to give intent to the laws passed on these matters in the House of Commons.

In ending my speech, I want to quote from a letter from Ros Toon, of the Little Sutton Action Group. She says: The vision the people of Sutton Coldfield have at this moment is a nightmarish one whereby good quality housing is lost, insensitive developments are approved whereby intense dwellings are introduced into neighbourhoods far exceeding the present density, completely out of character with the area and failing to enhance the locality in any way. That observation is surely at the heart of my remarks.

I repeat my thanks to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank the Minister for attending at this very late hour. I reiterate that we must conserve and enhance the qualities that make Sutton Coldfield a desirable place to live. We must make sure that the vagaries, doubts and lack of protection currently afforded to my constituents are ended. We look to the Government to redress the balance and to address the serious threat that is currently upon us, which Ministers should have the inclination—and do have the power—to diminish.

11.16pm

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)

I begin, as is customary, by congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate and thanking him for bringing his concerns about planning and development—not only in his constituency but further afield—to the attention of the House. I have listened to his arguments very carefully. I should also add that I am most grateful to him for his felicitations on my recent elevation. After such warmth, the prospect of visiting him becomes almost irresistible, should I find myself in his neck of the woods.

On a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that because of the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the First Secretary of State, my ability to comment on particular planning cases is restricted, but I am able to talk about the policy framework within which decisions are taken.

The Government want everyone to share in the nation's prosperity, and at its most fundamental level that includes ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to have a decent home. However difficult it may be, we have to balance social, environmental and economic considerations in meeting the nation's housing needs. The fact is that for decades, this country has failed to build enough homes in the right places, and at the right cost, to meet its housing needs. Thanks to this historical underinvestment in housing of all kinds, parts of the country such as Sutton Coldfield have come under tremendous pressure. They have strong housing markets and are rightly seen as highly desirable places in which to live.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the level of concern in his constituency about the pressure for development, and I want to respond by focusing on two main aspects, the first of which is how we can create sustainable communities everywhere, and not just in housing hot-spots such as Sutton Coldfield. To do that, we need to make our town and city centres more attractive places to live in, so that we take some of the heat off the peripheral suburbs and surrounding boroughs. Secondly, it is right that places such as Sutton Coldfield should continue to accept their share of appropriate development through the planning system—a point that the hon. Gentleman seemed to concede. The question is: how to do that in a way that offers new homes, with the minimum possible impact on the environment? I want to address both those points—the wider and the more local contexts—in more detail.

Sutton Coldfield is coming under such pressure for development because there is unmet housing need and people want to live there. It is vital that places with the strongest housing markets are not left to shoulder an undue amount of the burden in meeting this housing need. We must make sure that other places are seen as attractive locations to live—especially the brownfield land in our towns and cities.

For many years, successive Governments did little to stop the mass exodus of people from inner cities such as Birmingham's. In the early 1990s, only an average 45 dwellings per year were built in Birmingham's city centre. Instead of staying in the city, an increasing number of people left for the suburbs and the "ex-urbs", and the fundamental causes of urban decline were never tackled head on. Our policies are having a positive impact by encouraging councils such as Birmingham's to promote and develop their inner cities as attractive places to live.

In the 1990s, Birmingham recognised that housing in central locations would reduce pressure for development in peripheral areas of the city such as Sutton Coldfield, and they set out to encourage more city centre housing. Now more and more homes are being built in the city centre. A significant proportion of new dwellings have appeared in the jewellery quarter and the convention centre quarter, close to the flagship Bridley Place development. There is potential for 3,500 dwellings as part of the major eastside development. Over the past three years, home completions in the city centre have grown from 331 to 912 per annum.

That trend looks set to continue. A further 1,793 dwellings were under construction and 3,550 had planning permission in April 2003, and the unitary development plan alterations have set a target of 10,000 new dwellings in the city centre by 2011. Under policies pursued by previous Governments, those homes would not have been built or would have been built further out on the edge of the city or the countryside. Either way, it would have been bad news for Sutton Coldfield.

In addition to making the city centre an attractive place in which to live, Birmingham is also collaborating with Government policies to turn round the areas in need of regeneration beyond the city centre. For example, Birmingham is committed to regenerating Attwood Green, a large estate on the city centre fringe, which is being redeveloped to provide between 1,100 and 1,600 mixed-tenure dwellings.

After years in which the housing problems of the inner city continued to escalate, the Government are taking positive action to ensure that all the neighbourhoods of Birmingham and elsewhere are viable, sustainable communities. Overall, of the housing completions in Birmingham under regional planning guidance, 81 per cent, have been built on previously developed land. The UDP alterations expect 82 per cent, of all new dwellings to be built on previously developed land, and Birmingham is not proposing any further greenfield land allocations. Compact development using brownfield land first means that we use less greenfield land. The more the existing inner urban area can accommodate people and homes, the less the need to look further afield.

That is not to say that Sutton Coldfield, or places like it, can pull up the drawbridge and say no to any more development. Sutton Coldfield has housing needs just like any community, and it must play its part to provide the right kinds of homes, which is not to say that development must not be controlled. It is for a local authority to determine whether particular residential areas are of such significance that being given special status should preserve their character. For example, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Four Oaks estate in Sutton Coldfield includes a number of fine arts-and-crafts style private houses and was designated a conservation area in 1986. A special set of development and conservation guidelines apply to protect the unique character of that area.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the reuse of land that has already been used for development sometimes means that existing homes are demolished and replaced with new housing, so let me say something that I hope will go some way to meeting that concern. The demolition of homes is currently covered by a general planning permission granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, subject to a "prior approval" arrangement with the local planning authority.

Last year the Government published the planning statement "Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning". One of the proposals in the statement was to review the generally permitted development order to see whether existing permitted development rights were still appropriate. That project is well under way, and we expect the researchers to report back to us shortly. The review provides an opportunity to consider the need for change to the existing demolition controls. We will, of course, be looking very carefully at the recommendations of the research report when we get them. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

When housing is built, we expect all new residential development to be of high quality—irrespective of the density of the development. Well planned and well designed new development on brownfield sites can help provide the new homes needed in our communities and produce attractive places in which to live, but inadequate planning and poor design put at risk both the provision of new homes and environmental quality.

The Government's policy on those issues is outlined in planning policy guidance note 3—PPG3, to which the hon. Gentleman made frequent reference. PPG3 encourages well designed housing. It calls for homes that meet the needs of the whole community, and promotes the reuse of previously developed land. PPG3 also requires higher density development in order to minimise the impact on the environment.

It is important for plans to reflect the full set of policies in PPG3, including its emphasis on the quality of the place and living environment being created by new development. We expect a site suitable for residential development to be tested against the criteria set out in PPG3. Those include environmental constraints and the capacity of the infrastructure—for example, public transport and social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals—to absorb further development. Those criteria will rule out unsuitable sites, but PPG3 also advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context. PPG3 policies make it clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject poor design.

Mr. Mitchell

I am listening carefully to the Minister's remarks. I do not expect him to give me a detailed answer tonight to some of the specific points that I made about PPG3, but perhaps he could write to me in due course. I would be most interested to hear his Department's latest views.

Keith Hill

The hon Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully to his observations and I shall study the report of his remarks. I also undertake to write to him on the specific issues that he raised.

PPG3 encourages local authorities to develop a shared vision with their communities of the types of residential environments that they wish to see in their area, but that does not mean that we cannot at the same time make better use of land by building at higher densities than has been the case previously. A key factor in achieving that is the need for new developments to have regard to good design. Good design and layout can help to avoid unnecessary development in the countryside and secure an appropriate mix of dwelling size and type to meet local housing needs.

In seeking to improve the quality and attractiveness of residential development, PPG3 advises that local planning authorities and developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts that make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. Local authorities are expected to adopt policies that help to create places that are attractive and have their own distinctive identity, but also respect and enhance local character.

The hon. Gentleman has expressed the concerns of his constituents and I share his belief that, in meeting the housing needs of today's and future generations, we should minimise the environmental impact of development. We need to encourage developers and local authorities to work with local communities to promote appropriate and well designed development. It is too easy to stick our heads in the sand and say "no more development". Likewise it is too easy, as previous Governments did, to allow pepper-potted sprawl to march across the country. Our approach is to create sustainable communities and ensure that well planned, well thought out development leaves a legacy that future generations will thank us for.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o 'clock.