Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether, when making the decision to withdraw the direction for Birmingham City Council not to take any step in connection with the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031, his Department (a) received any submissions, whether oral or in writing, from third parties, (b) received any submissions from parties interested in or connected to the Peddimore Employment Site and Langley Sustainable Urban Extension and (c) held any meetings with third parties in relation to the decision to withdraw the Holding Direction.
Answered by Lord Barwell
In relation to your request at (a) and (b) the information requested is held by the Department and I will place a copy of these documents in the Library of the House. No oral submissions were made to the Department.
In relation to your request at (c), officials from the Department met with Birmingham City Council on 23 June 2016 at which the Council delivered a presentation and I will also place a copy of this document in the Library of the House.
Some information has been redacted. The information is the personal data, as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), of another individual.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Housing and Planning of 13 December 2016, Official Report, column 733, on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, what steps he has taken to ask Birmingham City Council to consult the Royal Sutton Coldfield town council on the measures included in the Birmingham City Council Development Plan 2031.
Answered by Lord Barwell
Local planning authorities are required to prepare and comply with a Statement of Community Involvement throughout the preparation of a local plan. For Birmingham Development Plan this included consulting with resident associations and neighbourhood forums, parish councils and the general public, in addition to a list of other relevant consultees at the required stages to inform the production of a draft plan, to seek representations on that plan prior to it being submitted for independent examination and on modifications to the plan proposed during examination. Local groups and representatives also provided evidence to the Inspector as part of the examination process. The Inspector examining the Birmingham Development Plan confirmed that the council undertook widespread consultation and that the consultations met all the relevant legal requirements, including compliance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. Notwithstanding this, I have written to Birmingham City Council to make them aware of the matters you have raised.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps were taken to identify sites of brownfield land under 600 square metres in size suitable for housing development in Birmingham prior to his decision to permit building on greenbelt land in Sutton Coldfield.
Answered by Lord Barwell
The Secretary of State appointed an independent inspector to carry out the examination of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Examination hearings were heard between 21 October and 27 November 2014 at which you and members of the local community expressed your views. These were, of course, considered by the Inspector as part of his examination of this case.
The Inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of sites proposed in the Plan are on brownfield land and there is a density policy that ‘seeks to maximise the yield from each development site’.
With regard to exceptional circumstances for alterations to the Green Belt, our position is set out in the decision letter issued to Birmingham City Council on 24 November 2016. The Inspector’s concluded that even when taking consideration of the approach taken by the Council, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is “exceptional” and that a “combination of factors means that exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt” and following consideration of the issues we found no reason to disagree.
Regarding the difference in price between houses built on green belt and non-Green Belt land, the Inspector was satisfied that the sites and growth areas within the Plan were justified and deliverable.
The housing capacity set out in the Plan includes a windfall allowance, an element of which includes capacity for smaller sites below 600 square metres.
In the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the strategic Green Belt release at Sutton Coldfield and with regard the matters above, the Inspector concluded that the evidence base is sufficient and provides adequate explanations for the Council’s decisions.
In reaching our decision to remove the holding direction we are satisfied that Birmingham City Council should be able to take further steps in connection with the adoption of the Plan and we saw no grounds to differ from the conclusions the Inspector reached. We are satisfied that Birmingham City Council has taken a robust approach that is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what alternative options he considered prior to his decision to permit building on greenbelt land in Sutton Coldfield.
Answered by Lord Barwell
The Secretary of State appointed an independent inspector to carry out the examination of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Examination hearings were heard between 21 October and 27 November 2014 at which you and members of the local community expressed your views. These were, of course, considered by the Inspector as part of his examination of this case.
The Inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of sites proposed in the Plan are on brownfield land and there is a density policy that ‘seeks to maximise the yield from each development site’.
With regard to exceptional circumstances for alterations to the Green Belt, our position is set out in the decision letter issued to Birmingham City Council on 24 November 2016. The Inspector’s concluded that even when taking consideration of the approach taken by the Council, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is “exceptional” and that a “combination of factors means that exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt” and following consideration of the issues we found no reason to disagree.
Regarding the difference in price between houses built on green belt and non-Green Belt land, the Inspector was satisfied that the sites and growth areas within the Plan were justified and deliverable.
The housing capacity set out in the Plan includes a windfall allowance, an element of which includes capacity for smaller sites below 600 square metres.
In the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the strategic Green Belt release at Sutton Coldfield and with regard the matters above, the Inspector concluded that the evidence base is sufficient and provides adequate explanations for the Council’s decisions.
In reaching our decision to remove the holding direction we are satisfied that Birmingham City Council should be able to take further steps in connection with the adoption of the Plan and we saw no grounds to differ from the conclusions the Inspector reached. We are satisfied that Birmingham City Council has taken a robust approach that is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he took to prioritise the development of brownfield sites in Birmingham prior to his decision to permit building on greenbelt land in Sutton Coldfield.
Answered by Lord Barwell
The Secretary of State appointed an independent inspector to carry out the examination of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Examination hearings were heard between 21 October and 27 November 2014 at which you and members of the local community expressed your views. These were, of course, considered by the Inspector as part of his examination of this case.
The Inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of sites proposed in the Plan are on brownfield land and there is a density policy that ‘seeks to maximise the yield from each development site’.
With regard to exceptional circumstances for alterations to the Green Belt, our position is set out in the decision letter issued to Birmingham City Council on 24 November 2016. The Inspector’s concluded that even when taking consideration of the approach taken by the Council, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is “exceptional” and that a “combination of factors means that exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt” and following consideration of the issues we found no reason to disagree.
Regarding the difference in price between houses built on green belt and non-Green Belt land, the Inspector was satisfied that the sites and growth areas within the Plan were justified and deliverable.
The housing capacity set out in the Plan includes a windfall allowance, an element of which includes capacity for smaller sites below 600 square metres.
In the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the strategic Green Belt release at Sutton Coldfield and with regard the matters above, the Inspector concluded that the evidence base is sufficient and provides adequate explanations for the Council’s decisions.
In reaching our decision to remove the holding direction we are satisfied that Birmingham City Council should be able to take further steps in connection with the adoption of the Plan and we saw no grounds to differ from the conclusions the Inspector reached. We are satisfied that Birmingham City Council has taken a robust approach that is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of the difference in price between houses built on (a) greenbelt and (b) non-greenbelt land.
Answered by Lord Barwell
The Secretary of State appointed an independent inspector to carry out the examination of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Examination hearings were heard between 21 October and 27 November 2014 at which you and members of the local community expressed your views. These were, of course, considered by the Inspector as part of his examination of this case.
The Inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of sites proposed in the Plan are on brownfield land and there is a density policy that ‘seeks to maximise the yield from each development site’.
With regard to exceptional circumstances for alterations to the Green Belt, our position is set out in the decision letter issued to Birmingham City Council on 24 November 2016. The Inspector’s concluded that even when taking consideration of the approach taken by the Council, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is “exceptional” and that a “combination of factors means that exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt” and following consideration of the issues we found no reason to disagree.
Regarding the difference in price between houses built on green belt and non-Green Belt land, the Inspector was satisfied that the sites and growth areas within the Plan were justified and deliverable.
The housing capacity set out in the Plan includes a windfall allowance, an element of which includes capacity for smaller sites below 600 square metres.
In the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the strategic Green Belt release at Sutton Coldfield and with regard the matters above, the Inspector concluded that the evidence base is sufficient and provides adequate explanations for the Council’s decisions.
In reaching our decision to remove the holding direction we are satisfied that Birmingham City Council should be able to take further steps in connection with the adoption of the Plan and we saw no grounds to differ from the conclusions the Inspector reached. We are satisfied that Birmingham City Council has taken a robust approach that is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the exceptional circumstances were in relation to his decision to permit building on greenbelt land in Sutton Coldfield.
Answered by Lord Barwell
The Secretary of State appointed an independent inspector to carry out the examination of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Examination hearings were heard between 21 October and 27 November 2014 at which you and members of the local community expressed your views. These were, of course, considered by the Inspector as part of his examination of this case.
The Inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of sites proposed in the Plan are on brownfield land and there is a density policy that ‘seeks to maximise the yield from each development site’.
With regard to exceptional circumstances for alterations to the Green Belt, our position is set out in the decision letter issued to Birmingham City Council on 24 November 2016. The Inspector’s concluded that even when taking consideration of the approach taken by the Council, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is “exceptional” and that a “combination of factors means that exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt” and following consideration of the issues we found no reason to disagree.
Regarding the difference in price between houses built on green belt and non-Green Belt land, the Inspector was satisfied that the sites and growth areas within the Plan were justified and deliverable.
The housing capacity set out in the Plan includes a windfall allowance, an element of which includes capacity for smaller sites below 600 square metres.
In the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the strategic Green Belt release at Sutton Coldfield and with regard the matters above, the Inspector concluded that the evidence base is sufficient and provides adequate explanations for the Council’s decisions.
In reaching our decision to remove the holding direction we are satisfied that Birmingham City Council should be able to take further steps in connection with the adoption of the Plan and we saw no grounds to differ from the conclusions the Inspector reached. We are satisfied that Birmingham City Council has taken a robust approach that is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.