| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.16 pm
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |