Birmingham City Council to proceed with development plan after holding direction lifted

Housing and planning minister Gavin Barwell informed the council of his decision in a letter, which has been published on its website. The council, which was prevented from adopting the plan while the holding direction remained in place, now intends to do so early in 2017.

Holding directions give the government time to decide whether to formally require a local planning authority to alter a development plan before it is adopted. The power, which was included in the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, only came into force on 26 May and the Birmingham case was the first occasion in which it had been used.

Barwell used the power again in October to issue a holding direction against Bradford Metropolitan District Council, after a local MP raised concerns about the impact of its development plan on the green belt. This holding direction remains in place.

John Clancy, the leader of Birmingham City Council, described the lifting of the holding direction as "excellent news" because "it means we can now get on with the vital task of building homes and delivering the jobs that our fast-growing population so desperately needs".

"This is an ambitious plan for growth which will deliver 51,000 new homes and significant new employment opportunities," he said. "It is an important step forward that, having reviewed the robustness of the plan, the government has supported the conclusions of the planning inspector and recognised the need to release green belt to help meet our housing and employment land needs."

In his letter, Barwell said that the government "[saw] no ground to differ from the conclusions" reached by an independent planning inspector, who found the development plan sound in March of this year. This was despite the fact that the plan provided for 38,000 fewer homes than are considered to be needed in Birmingham by 2031.

The plan provides for 51,000 new homes, 6,000 of which would be built on a sustainable urban extension (SUE) at Langley, to the east of Sutton Coldfield. The planned development would require the release of land from the green belt against the objections of Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, who has led the campaign against the SUE and wrote to then communities secretary Greg Clark asking him to review the plan.

Barwell said that his decision had taken account of the concerns raised by Mitchell, as well as the independent inspector's report.

"The inspector set out in his report that the vast majority of the sites proposed in the plan are on brownfield land and the plan has a density policy that seeks to 'maximise the yield from each development site'. We agree with the inspector's conclusion that even when taking consideration of this approach, the scale of potentially unmet need in the city is 'exceptional and possibly unique'," Barwell said in his letter.

"We further note the inspector's findings that though the plan does not accommodate provision for all of Birmingham's housing need within the city, the council has taken steps with regard to the duty to cooperate to address the issue and persuade other local planning authorities to act if this becomes necessary to address the shortfall. Taking into account the factors above, we see no ground to differ from the conclusions that the inspector appointed to examine the plan has reached," he said.

Housing law expert Lucy Close of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said that local planning authorities should be "reassured" by Barwell's letter.

"Bold and innovative plans are needed if we are going to start to deal with the housing shortfall nationally, especially where green belt is being reviewed to release land for housing such as in Birmingham," she said. "Local planning authorities should be reassured that Barwell has said that the government will support such decisions where they are found to be legally sound."

"It is obviously important that plans are made in a responsible way that protects all interests of the local people and the environment, but we also need to make sure that local planning authorities are empowered and feel more comfortable to take the big decisions that are often unpopular but are necessary for current and future generations to have necessary housing, including release of green belt land," she said.

Close said that, in this case, there were no real options available to the government "other than to withdraw his direction or direct the plan to be redrawn, given how far the Birmingham plan had gone in its evolution".

"Clearly, given the government's March 2017 deadline for all plans to be adopted, the latter would have run counter to the government's plan deadline and would have left the city council unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed to any sanctions the government may impose for failure to have its plan in place," she said.

"Having said this, it will be interesting to see if and how Andrew Mitchell MP will challenge the DCLG's decision, as this may not be the end of the story just yet," she said.