PARLIAMENTARY WRITTEN QUESTION
Green Belt (5 December 2016)

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.

Asked by:
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Conservative)

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.

Answered by:
Lord Barwell (Conservative)
13 December 2016