| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way, I am sorry.
As it happens, no developer has yet come forward; Philips has not, and nor has anyone else. Nevertheless, the permission stands. The inspector's recommendation that, if there were any prospect of permission being given, it should be time limited, was again rejected by the Government.
Basically, therefore, 150 acres of green-belt land are to be destroyed, but the prospect is that that will not be an end to the process. The council, which both owns the land and is the planning authority, will make further proposals. Unless we are careful, there will be a step-by-step domino destruction of the green belt around Sutton Coldfield. Of that there is very little doubt.
What are the lessons of the Government decision? The first is that, although this happened in Sutton Coldfield, it could happen anywhere. As the law stands, the Secretary of State is the final judge and jury in such a case. This Secretary of State talks about the importance of the green belt, but it is deeds, not words, that matter, and this decision brings his position into considerable doubt.
There is a further point. In many ways, the West Midlands development agency is the forerunner of the new regional development agencies, which the
Government are setting up. RDAs will also be called on and expected to put together land that can be used for inward investment projects. Like the West Midlands development agency, RDAs are not accountable locally to electors; they are not elected bodies.
Over the coming months and years, other green-belt sites will be put forward, and who is the Minister responsible for regional development agencies? It is, of course, the Minister who is also responsible for planning decisions: the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He is to be judge and jury in his own cause. That raises matters of great concern: constitutional, legal and political concern. We--and, I hope, others--will want to return to the issue.
The die has been cast for the Minworth site. The decision has been taken. The green belt is to be destroyed. It is an act of vandalism. The responsibility lies first with Birmingham council, but, above all, with the Government, who have rejected the independent inspector's report. It seems pointless to have such inquiries, to ask learned and expert people to act as planning inspectors, to take evidence and to cover the whole area, if the Secretary of State simply rejects the inspector's recommendation; but that is precisely what has happened in this case.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn):
I remind the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that the powers that we will give to regional development agencies will be those that were invested in English Partnerships. Indeed, his Administration, when he was a member of it, gave English Partnerships those powers. It was accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment; there is no difference.
The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that he raised his constituency green-belt concerns in an Adjournment debate on 8 May 1996. I have taken the trouble to read what he said, and to remind myself of what the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), as the Minister replying for the Government of the day, said in response. He referred in particular to the national planning policy framework for the green belt: planning policy guidance note 2. He also drew attention to the framework of regional planning guidance in RPG11.
I stress two points. The current national policy framework for the green belt is the one put in place by the Conservative party when it was in government, and the regional planning framework is also that put in place by the Conservative party. We inherited that framework. We have already announced some of our proposals for modernising the planning system and strengthening the regional planning guidance in particular. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making further announcements in the near future.
We are moving things forward and addressing the issues, but we cannot indulge in the "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here" approach. We have to start
with what we inherited, and that means taking decisions in accordance with the framework that we inherited. We have done just that. If the right hon. Gentleman did not like the framework, what did he do about it when his party was in government?
As I said, we inherited the green-belt policy from the previous Administration. We are accused of weakening it. Let me make it clear that we have no such intention. Our policy is as set out in PPG note 2 of January 1985. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. Inappropriate development is justified only if there are very special circumstances whereby the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the harm that could be done to the green belt. We attach great weight to any changes to the green belt which inappropriate development might cause.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the particular issue of the decision last August to grant permission for a major inward investment site at Peddimore in his constituency. The reasons for the decision taken on the Peddimore case were set out fully in the decision letter dated 7 August 1997 to which he referred. This followed a full public inquiry into the proposals and a very careful consideration of the inspector's report.
The background to the Peddimore decision is RPG11--issued, I remind the House, by the previous Government--which recognised that the lack of sites for major inward investment was holding back economic development in the west midlands. RPG11 recommended that up to two large major investment sites should be provided. Following publication of RPG11, a joint study by the West Midlands Regional Forum of Local Authorities concluded that no brown-field site of suitable size was available in the region. The study identified the Minworth area, where Peddimore is located, as one of two priority areas in the region for locating major industrial inward investment.
The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the fact that we disagreed with the inspector's recommendation to refuse the application. This was a case where a balance had to be struck between economic prosperity and harm to the countryside. Our decision letter acknowledged the serious changes that the development would cause to the green belt, but we gave greater weight than did the inspector to the region's need for inward investment sites, as identified in RPG11, and to the potential economic benefits that a micro-electronics fabrication plant would bring.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to make much of what he calls the speculative nature of the development proposal, but I think he is missing the point. The permission at Peddimore is tightly conditioned. It is for a micro-electronics fabrication plant. It does not create a precedent for any other type of development on the green belt at Peddimore. If the proposed development does not go ahead, the site will remain undeveloped green-belt land. If, on the other hand, proposals are made for alternative development, they will have to go through the planning process and be considered on their merits. I stress that point. So the conditions for the Peddimore site are very tightly drawn.
I understand people's concern about the green belt and the implications of new developments. These cases involve taking hard decisions. In this case, we were satisfied that the potential benefits outweighed the potential harm.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has consistently opposed the proposed development at Peddimore, but I imagine that he would be the first to welcome the jobs and wealth created in his constituency if the proposed development went ahead.
Let me make another observation. The right hon. Gentleman has told us how much opposition there is to the decision. We have heard about petitions to No. 10, and about his doubts. He even wants to change the law so that people can appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. In the statutory six-week period after the decision, neither he nor anyone else exercised their right to challenge it in the High Court.
Mr. Caborn:
I want to get everything on the record. It is right that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents should hear the other side of the argument, probably through Hansard.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to pressure on the green belt boundary in his constituency. Let me remind the House what the policy is and what RPG11 has to say on the matter.
Green belts are established by local authorities through development plans. Once established, it is the Government's policy they should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Ensuring that green belt boundaries endure will mean in some cases safeguarding land between the urban area and the green belt, which may be required to meet longer-term development needs.
Regional policy guidance for the west Midlands--RPG11--published in September 1995, acknowledged that there was no case for a fundamental review of the green belts, and that, in parts of the region, detailed green belt boundaries defined in development plans were well founded and made adequate provision for development, immediately and in the longer term.
The guidance confirmed that
Birmingham and other metropolitan authorities in the west midlands are reviewing their unitary development
plans. It is important that they take a suitably strategic view of long-term development needs and green belt boundaries, to ensure that any necessary new development is in the most sustainable locations.
"in many cases boundaries remain too tightly drawn around built-up areas".
It went on to say:
"the tight green belt boundaries around the metropolitan area . . . may diminish the value of local plans for making proper provision for necessary development in the future. In some locations where boundaries are tightly drawn and where development can significantly contribute to the objective of reducing the need to travel boundaries are likely exceptionally to need redrawing to make adequate provision for longer-term development."
Those are not my words; they are in RPG11, issued by the previous Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with those conclusions at the time?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |