| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
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
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.
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 andO 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:
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
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
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.
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.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Kazakhstan) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on29th February, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Moldova) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on29th February, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Kyrgyz Republic) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Belarus) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
That, in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
8 May 1996 : Column 343
10.13 pm
"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".
"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)".
"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."
"development of the site could give rise to major capital receipts."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |