§ Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)I am grateful for the opportunity to debate greenfield sites. Although it is an important issue in my constituency, I suspect that Bromsgrove is representative of other authorities with predominant greenbelt land. They, too, face severe problems as a result of the Government's requirement for additional housing, which is passed down to the county councils, which then pass it down to the district councils. That creates great difficulties for greenbelt authorities. Bromsgrove comprises 92 per cent. greenbelt, which is a high percentage compared with other authorities. Sadly, the Government cannot give us figures about which other authorities have more than 90 per cent. greenbelt land in their boundaries, but clearly there are some, and those authorities have a problem as a result.
It is important to remind ourselves why the greenbelt was created in the first place. Greenbelt land is countryside that has special designation and protection so that it will act as a barrier and protect the countryside and, in the case of Bromsgrove, prevent the overspill of the metropolis of Birmingham from spreading further and further into the Worcestershire countryside until the metropolis and countryside become indistinguishable. Greenbelt land should receive extra protection because it forms a greenbelt around inner cities to prevent them from sprawling beyond their boundaries, but, sadly, it does not seem to receive that extra protection. That is a problem in Bromsgrove.
Conservative Members find it frustrating that, whenever we debate the greenbelt, the Government say that there is good news because they have created more of it—the Minister's response may fall into line with that. The only reason why the Government have found it necessary to create more greenbelt is because they have allowed the despoliation of the land that previously existed. Of course, if we were properly to protect the greenbelt, it would not be necessary to create more of it because the creation of greenbelt suggests that areas of countryside are in danger of being developed and greenbelt designation is necessary to stop urban sprawl. If proper planning laws were in place, it would not be necessary to create more greenbelt, however, desirable it is to designate such land once the problem has been created. My aim in the debate is to highlight that problem and to ask the Government to give extra protection to areas such as Bromsgrove and other areas of greenbelt so that we can maintain the beautiful English countryside and keep towns as towns, rather than create a great mix of things.
To explain the problem that exists in Bromsgrove, we have already bound sites for about 2,600 houses out of the 3,950 homes that we have had to build between 1996 and 2011. Extra homes have been added to our original target, but we must still find space to build another 1,350 homes. The problem is that there are no remaining useable brownfield sites. I say "useable" because, to be accurate, there is a small brownfield site in Hagley near the sewerage works, but to make that site viable it would be necessary to use some greenbelt land, which would be self-defeating. The other non-greenbelt site is an area closer to the town of farmland that is grade 1 agricultural land. Although it is not designated as 254WH greenbelt, it is certainly green land, and that is the only other site in the whole of Bromsgrove that is not classified as greenbelt on which we could build homes. Therefore, district councils tell me that we need about 100 acres of greenbelt land to meet the requirement for 1,350 more homes. That does not include future annual development requirements under which the district council will be obliged to find even more space for such further development as the Government think appropriate. Bromsgrove has a real problem. It is a greenbelt authority, under that special protection, but is no different from anywhere else with respect to the distribution of housing targets. It is expected to take further homes and to spoil what the greenbelt was intended to protect.
I appeal to the Minister for a change in the way in which housing targets are organised. We should not allow the inner city to sprawl out. At present, the greenbelt classification seems not to mean any added or special protection for authorities such as Bromsgrove, which seems to defeat its purpose.
How did the figure of 1,350 homes come about? Worcestershire county council, which handed down the target to Bromsgrove, has a housing target of 6,450 homes by 2011. They have been distributed between the six Worcestershire districts so that Bromsgrove, with 92 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,350 homes; Wyre Forest, next door in the north of the county, with 65 per cent. greenbelt land, has been given a target of 850 homes; Redditch, with 35 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,050 homes; Wychavon, 25 per cent. of which is designated greenbelt, is to have 1,300 homes; Worcester, which is 10 per cent. greenbelt land, is to have 1,500; and Malvern, which has no greenbelt land, has a target of 800 homes.
Bromsgrove, despite containing by far the largest amount of greenbelt, has been given the second highest housing allocation in the county. That seems perverse, given the reasons for the greenbelt and the aim of protecting parts of the country and clarifying the boundary between countryside and town. It is bizarre that Bromsgrove has been allocated only 50 more houses than Wychhavon, which has only a quarter as much greenbelt land.
The way in which the figures have been handed down by the Labour-controlled Worcestershire county council is frustrating, but it is outrageous that it is understood—although the county council will not clarify the location of the sites—that Worcestershire has enough brownfield sites to accommodate 50 per cent., if not more, of our housing target. Why did not Worcestershire, in making the allocation, do as the Government would presumably expect and seek out those sites for use before distributing the housing targets willy nilly around the various districts, without attention to the needs of the district that deserved the most protection?
Our frustration is increased by the fact that Bromsgrove schools are now overflowing. It is a delightful place to live and it is popular, because the schools are excellent. My postbag is full of mail from disappointed parents unable to get their children into the schools of their choice. On the last occasion when a large area was handed over to developers—a place called the Oakalls in the centre of Bromsgrove—the district council asked that a new school should be built 255WH as part of the dowry for the development. The county council turned that idea down, then changed its mind when it realised Bromsgrove's problem, but it was too late. The developers had offered other forms of dowry for that development. To have built a school at that stage would have meant paying market price, which would have been too expensive for the public purse.
We felt rather done down that the county did not properly consider our schooling, or our roads, when the figures were handed down. Our share of the roads budget is decided by the county council, yet one of the justifications for giving Worcestershire a disproportionate share of housing is that because we are so close to Birmingham, and many people who want to live in Bromsgrove will work in Birmingham, it makes sense to build houses in Bromsgrove. If that really is the county council's rationale for building more houses, I appeal for extra money to cope with the road problems that will be caused by yet more cars commuting into Birmingham and other cities every day. That is another reason for my disappointment with the figures.
The matter has caused a huge upset locally. A new Conservative council was elected in May last year and the demise of the previous Labour council was probably due to its proposal to build an arts centre on green land in the town centre, which was extremely unpopular in Bromsgrove. I suspect that it caused the Labour party to lose the election more dramatically than it would otherwise have done. The Labour council sat on proposals for further development in Bromsgrove; it was left to the new Conservative council to take the difficult decisions about which greenbelt land should be gobbled up in the Government's housing targets.
The issue is very fraught; for example, last night in Stoke Prior, one of the villages in my constituency, 200 people turned up to a public meeting to protest about the way in which the housing target affects their area. That is a lot of people to turn out to a public meeting on a cold February night, and people in many other villages in my constituency feel equally strongly. But if the Government insist, the houses will have to go somewhere and difficult decisions about which greenbelt landscape should be despoiled must be taken.
I pay tribute to the council leader, Councillor Nick Psirides, who has done a fantastic job in taking a grip on our new district council and grappling with the problems, keeping the public fully informed of the difficult decisions that are being forced on us by the Government's housing targets and giving people a chance to show their enormous strength of feeling. Councillor Psirides organised a Bromsgrove greenbelt pledge campaign and invited members of the public to telephone in support of it. So far, 2,050 calls have been made in support of maintaining Bromsgrove's greenbelt, and only 280 against. That shows my constituents' anxiety about the proposals.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider whether the present policy is in our best interests. The purpose of the debate is to plead with her to reconsider how the housing targets are allocated and to think about whether we are risking the greenbelt and the countryside beyond it by the "predict and provide" way of deciding housing allocation. The Government's target is for two thirds of new housing development to be on brownfield sites. That figure is all the more awesome when one considers 256WH that Bromsgrove has no available brownfield site, yet our housing allocation is handed down without any consideration of that problem.
If the Government are serious about having two thirds of all new homes built on brownfield sites, they must do more to change the mechanisms of the planning and allocation process. As my constituents can tell the Minister, vast tracts of brownfield sites in Birmingham and across the west midlands conurbation are desperate for fresh investment to be reinvigorated. It would be much better to refurbish them for new homes and other developments than to gobble up more countryside. The planning process needs to be given much greater consideration if we are fundamentally to change these dynamics.
If the Government look at the demographic changes that are taking place, they will see that there will be more single people in households than families. Single people might like to use the facilities of the inner-city areas and to live in smaller attractive units. We have some good examples in Birmingham, where the inner city has been rejuvenated to provide lovely living accommodation.
§ Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)Is the hon. Lady aware that the figure for the future suggested requirements for homes for single people does not just include single young people but older people and those with different marital circumstances. The simple idea that all those people can live above the shop, as it were, is not borne out by the figures.
§ Miss KirkbrideI thought that I was going to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman because it is those younger and older people who will need the new homes. Elderly people often like to live together near local shops and where they can enjoy the comfort and support of one another. It is just as appropriate for them to live in inner-city areas than outside in the countryside where they will need to use a car, which is expensive. They might be afraid of losing their driving licence if they became too ill and infirm. More use should be made of inner-city areas for young and old people. If the Government's two-thirds requirement for development means anything, why do they not do that?
Finally, and this is an ancillary point to our problems in the greenbelt in Bromsgrove, I turn to the reuse of agricultural buildings. We are having problems in our sensitive areas. Present planning guidance encourages the change of use of agricultural buildings to light industrial, and some inappropriate planning applications are being made in very rural areas where the roads are inadequate for industrial activity. There is a case for looking at the guidance. I understand that farmers need to make a living and that they have had great difficulties recently with farming policy, but change of use in the greenbelt is even more sensitive than in the countryside.
Will the Minister look at that so that the option of turning the footprint of agricultural buildings into housing rather than light industrial use can be more easily considered than under the present planning laws? In many cases in my constituency that would be a more desirable change of use than light industrial would be. On that note, I will sit down and allow the Minister time to respond. I look forward to her reply, which I hope will allow Bromsgrove to be reprieved from all this extra housing that could despoil our landscape.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)As is customary, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing the debate and on raising the important issue of development in the greenbelt. I am pleased that she shares the Government's commitment to the greenbelt, which has been demonstrated by the increase in greenbelt land since May 1997. She will be tired of hearing that that contrasts starkly with the record of the previous Government, who systematically took away greenbelt land during their last 10 years of office. She is right when she says that we should bring back land to the greenbelt. We need to turn around the legacy of a Government who substantially depleted this country of it.
I would like to set out the Government's general policies on development in the greenbelt and then to emphasise the importance of a planning system led by up-to-date development plans. I will also cover greenbelt and development issues relating to Worcestershire and Bromsgrove more specifically. The Government have stated many times their support for the greenbelt; but let me state it once again, for the record. We remain firm in our commitment to greenbelts. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning reaffirmed that in answering a question from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) as recently as 8 February.
Greenbelts are meant to remain open for as far ahead as can reasonably be foreseen, and there remains a strong presumption against inappropriate development within them. That does not mean, nor ever has, that development cannot take place in greenbelts. It does mean that inappropriate development can take place only where very special circumstances exist that outweigh the harm to the greenbelt. That is something that we take very seriously.
Government guidance on development or redevelopment of sites in the greenbelt is set out in planning policy guidance note 2. Local authorities must take its content into account in preparing their development plans, and it may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. PPG2 states that most development in the greenbelt is inappropriate. There are a limited number of occasions when new buildings are not inappropriate, and that includes those used for agriculture and forestry. It also recognises that the re-use of existing buildings, with suitable safeguards, should not prejudice the openness of the greenbelt, since the buildings are already there.
If a proposal does not meet the criteria set out in PPG2, it will be viewed as inappropriate development. For permission to be granted, exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated that outweigh the impact on the greenbelt.
Regional planning guidance sets the framework for greenbelt policy, including the direction of long-term development. Greenbelts are established through development plans. Many detailed greenbelt boundaries in England have been set in local plans and in old development plans, but in some areas, including Bromsgrove, detailed boundaries have not yet been 258WH defined. Up-to-date approved boundaries are essential to provide certainty as to where policies on the greenbelt apply, and to enable proper consideration of development options.
In Bromsgrove, I understand that the greenbelt is broadly defined by the existing structure plan. However, the detailed boundaries will be confirmed only when the Bromsgrove local plan is adopted. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove failed to take that into account. As she said, there was some delay in Bromsgrove in getting the local plan adopted, but the delay was attributable to the whole council, not to one group within it.
In 1997, the local plan inspector recommended that the Bromsgrove local plan create areas of development restraint and safeguarded reserve areas of land to meet possible future requirements. Detailed boundaries for greenbelt were being drawn through the local plan process for the first time. I am pleased to learn that the council is in the process of preparing draft modifications and it is for the local authority to decide the extent to which they follow the inspector's recommendations.
As I said, not all the boundaries in Bromsgrove have been defined in detail. The hon. Lady mentioned 92 per cent., but that does not apply to boundaries that have been agreed and approved through a local plan process. When they are defined, they will need to be capable of enduring beyond 2001 without the need for frequent or short-term changes. Bromsgrove will therefore have an opportunity to make changes to the draft plan and bring it fully up-to-date. I appreciate that the local authority has difficult decisions to make. They are competing imperatives—that is the nature of planning. Elected representatives must take those difficult political decisions. However, I hope that the plan can be adopted as soon as possible.
The Government lay great store by authorities having up-to-date development plans to aid development control and to help to reconcile the often competing demands of development and of the protection of the environment and the locality. I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to assist in that process.
Planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, which will be published shortly, is an important document. It will play a key role in countering the irresponsible development policies that the previous Administration pursued for more than a decade. The hon. Lady talked about predict and provide, but we started to change that old way of doing things when we took office. We have adopted a predict, monitor and manage approach, which is much more flexible. The key points are rigourous local authority housing capacity assessments; a sequential approach to housing site identification, putting the reuse of brownfield sites before the use of greenfield sites; a phased land release system, again putting brownfield sites first; a more efficient use of land through higher housing densities and lower parking standards; a better quality of design; and a national target of 60 per cent. of new houses to be built on previously used land.
§ Miss KirkbrideI am delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. Is it possible for Bromsgrove district 259WH authority to wait for those new targets to be put in place? It could then use brownfield sites in Birmingham and we could keep our greenfield sites in Bromsgrove.
§ Ms HughesI am coming to some of those points, but I must say to the hon. Lady that it is not consistent with our approach for any one authority to shed its responsibility to contribute to the 60 per cent. brownfield target simply by saying that a local authority elsewhere should take up its share of responsibility. That is not what the process is about.
The hon. Lady said that Bromsgrove residents were concerned at the number of new houses that might be required in the district over the coming years. I understand that the new draft structure plan for Worcestershire adopts the housing allocation for the county that was set out in the regional planning guidance issued in 1998. I take issue with the way in which the hon. Lady portrayed the process of reaching the figures and allocating them to districts. The housing allocations were based on advice to the Secretary of State from the West Midlands local government association and were arrived at in partnership with other public and private sector interests, including Bromsgrove and other local housing authorities. To say that the Government hand down numbers is to misunderstand or mislead about the nature of the process, which is dynamic. Crucially, it involves a determination by local partners of the overall target and how it should be allocated.
As the strategic planning authority, Worcestershire county council has divided the overall provision between districts. The hon. Lady complained about that division, but the new structure plan is to go to public examination in July, when local authorities and others will have an opportunity to debate these important issues. My Department is in the process of preparing its formal response on the structure plan, so I cannot comment further, except to say that the figures are not set in concrete; Bromsgrove and other districts will be able to make their views known.
I appreciate the fact that Bromsgrove has less previously used land than other authorities. However, by applying a rigorous analysis of where that land is—taking the sequential approach in PPG3—Bromsgrove can at least go some way towards meeting its targets. The figures released today for the results of the individual local planning authority's contribution to the national land use database show that Bromsgrove has at least 46 hectares of previously developed land, not the zero hectares that the hon. Lady and the council leader have talked about.
There is an opportunity through proper process for Bromsgrove to make its views known on the matter.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)Order. Time is up.