HL Deb 24 June 1992 vol 538 cc34-5WA
The Earl of Shrewsbury

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How the failure of the Department of the Environment to lodge an objection to the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan on the ground that no provision is made for possible future development needs can be reconciled with—

  1. (a) their policy that such provision should be made when Green Belt boundaries are defined or reviewed;
  2. (b) the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his letter of approval to the West Midlands Structure Plan Review dated 24th January 1986 that the lack of provision for development needs beyond the end of the plan period was contrary to the provisions of Circular 14/84; and
  3. (c) the letter of 12th September 1986 from the West Midland Office of the Department of the Environment to the Birmingham City Council which stated that the proposals in the draft Sutton Coldfield district plan WA 35 alterations could not be regarded as short-term, but that it was accepted that the matter would be dealt with in the unitary development plan.

Lord Strathclyde

The Government remain committed to the policy, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, that provision should be made for longer term development needs when Green Belt boundaries are defined.

The Secretary of State for the Environment will be looking at the Inspector's report on the Birmingham UDP and at any modifications proposed by the city council to see what provision the plan then makes for longer term development needs. The Secretary of State will examine the plan carefully to identify whether there appear to be conflicts with national or regional policy guidance. If there are conflicts which do not appear to be justified by local circumstances, he will, if necessary, make a formal intervention.