Gisela Stuart MPWorking hard for Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harborne and Quinton

Gisela backs Moor Pool in Parliament // October 21st, 2009 // Speeches, Articles and Interviews

 

Moor Pool Debate Part 1

Moor Pool Debate Part 2

Moor Pool Debate Part 3

 

 Gisela Stuart continued to back the Moor Pool residents today in an adjournment debate she secured in Parliament.

Residents in the Moor Pool estate in Harborne have been battling to prevent the building of more homes in the Conservation Area.

A copy of Gisela’s speech is below and a copy of the Minister’s response can be found here.

Westminster hall debate 21st October 2009

Gisela Stuart MP - Birmingham Edgbaston

I want to raise a problem with the Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act of 1990. This is best illustrated by explaining to the Minister the plight of the residents in the Moor Pool Estate in the heart of my constituency.  

The Moor Pool Estate is an early example of a garden suburb. The aim was to build an estate of modern well built houses of various sizes which would attract a cross section of the community, based on co-partnership principles.

At that time Birmingham was plagued by slum dwellings typified by the back-to backs, which came about as the city rapidly developed as an industrial centre.

John Nettlefold, the then Chairman of the Birmingham Housing Committee wanted to demonstrate that there was an alternative way forward…. And he turned to the principles of the garden city movement.

For the Moor Pool Estate there was no consideration for housing a particular employers’ workforce - as was the case in Bourneville with Cadbury’s. This was to serve Harborne and Birmingham in general and the estate with some five hundred houses, a community hall which includes sports amenities, open spaces and allotments.

It has remained almost intact for over 100 years.  

English Heritage describes it as being “very significant architecturally and historically” and an “exceptional survival”. 

Over the years people have bought their own properties, others are still tenants.

The estate has changed hands too. From owners who cared and ensured the fabric of the community was maintained to the current one, Grainger plc, who clearly does not share that approach.

Granger’s annual report of 2007 is amazingly explicit about how they view estates with regulated tenancies like the Moor Pool.

“They give us predictable vacancies and therefore sales, as our tenants get older” 

And

“On vacancy, we sell the properties to realise both the discount (which we call the reversion) and any house price inflation from the date we originally bought them. They therefore realise high margins on sale.” 

They also observe that “these properties are typically unmodernised and appeal to first-time buyers and those hoping to create value on renovation. This keeps them in demand”.

So for Granger’s it’s not about maintaining a community, but about waiting till tenants die so they can sell un-renovated properties at high margins. And that’s what they are doing in the Moor Pool Estate.  

The years of neglect are there for everyone to see in the communal areas such as the garages and the allotments.

But now, adding insult to injury Grainger’s have put in a planning application to in-fill with new build.

And despite the most coherent and united opposition of local people and their Resident’s Association, supported by English Heritage,  the planning application to 12 houses has been granted by Birmingham City Council. 

Something has gone wrong. I am concerned about the Moor Pool Estates’ future, about the process involved in granting the planning application, which seems to have given no regard to local opinion, and the future of other conservation areas.

Despite continued attempts by local residents to protect the estate they seem to have failed.

Application of the 4 (2) Direction

Having been granted conservation area status back in 1970, one of the first things I got involved in after becoming the MP for the area in 1997 was to support the residents like the late Ken Abbott, to obtain the enhanced protection the application of the 4 (2) Direction seemed to offer.

After years of pushing Birmingham City Council, the direction finally came into place in December 2006.

Alas the protection is limited and above all it does not apply to new developments.

But there was the Planning Act of 1990 which might come to the rescue.

Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act 1990 

Section 71 [1] states “it shall be the duty of a local planning authority from time to time to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of their area which are conservation areas”.

Thus Birmingham CC was under a statutory obligation to produce a character appraisal, but as to when this should happen the Act only tells us that it has to be “from time to time”. 

The Character Appraisal matters because it is this document which determines how planning applications should be considered.

I invite the minister to comment on the following.

The case officer who recommended approval for the building of 12 new houses in the heart of the Moor Pool Estate said in his report

“That he notes S71 but that the words ‘from time to time’ indicate that an appraisal may not always be in place.”

Indeed he refers to English Heritages’ own guidance which says ‘ideally an appraisal should be prepared prior to designation, but for many existing conservation areas this will not have been done”.

“Therefore his planning solicitor does not consider that there is an absolute duty to carry out an appraisal before such conservation area designation takes place.

The Solicitor does note that Planning Policy Guidance15: planning and the historic environment requires Local Planning authorities to set out their policies for conservation areas in their development plans.

He also acknowledges that Birmingham’s “UDP refers to Character Appraisals in Policy 3.27 for Conservation Areas which states that Appraisals [and management plans] will be prepared for all the City’s conservation areas - this is clearly an ongoing process, as at Moor Pool where work on the Appraisal and Management Plan is progressing”.

So we have confirmation of a commitment from Birmingham City Council to prepare Appraisals and Management Plans for ALL its Conservation areas.

I wonder how he would define the word “progressing”. Progressing… after 39 years of being a conservation area, progressing after 19 years of a statutory duty being in force;

Progressing three years after application of 4 (2) direction - I wonder what kind of speed of progress Birmingham City Council had in mind.

Maybe it is like the opening scene of the Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy….when the Vogon Constructor fleet descends on earth to destroy the planet and the commander points out to the complaining earthlings that the planning application had been available in Ursa Minor for at least the last 50 earth years.

Despite contacts with the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council and the Leader of Birmingham City Council Councillor Mike Whitby, who incidentally is also a local councillor for the Moor Pool estate, we still don’t have a firm date for the Character Appraisal.

This also raises the question of the role local councillors can and should play in this process. Planning is a local decision, and it should be so.

As for the Moor Pool, it could be argued that as the Leader of the Council Councillor Whitby did not feel it appropriate to comment on a local planning application.

But this argument does not hold, given that he just recently publicly opposed a planning application for a café on Harborne High Street

He also chaired the Moor Pool Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Steering Group in December 2006, even though it would have been perfectly appropriate for to be chaired by the head of Conservation.

So there was plenty of time and opportunity for the local councillors to speed up the process and get the character appraisal done in time. But this clearly did not happen.

English Heritage also objected to the development. In their judgement one of the key parts of the character of Moor Pool was that many of the spaces were of good quality, and that they should be treated as an integrated system in the consideration of development proposals affecting them.

In July this year Granger’s application was approved by Birmingham City Councils Planning Committee.

Conservation area status, objection from English Heritage, overwhelming objections by the local community - none of it mattered. The builders won - the people lost.

The process also highlighted what I would like to call “stock excuses” by the planners for supporting property developers.

“Infilling and permitted development”

The argument goes something like this… The Government has a clear policy to increase the housing supply. It also wants to encourage the use of brown sites in cities. Even back gardens are defined as “brown sites”. So any local authority faced with a planning application by a developer - even if it is in a conservation area - is caught between a rock and a hard place.

They have a duty to increase housing stock - so they have to say yes.

If it’s in conservation area it’s described as “permitted development”.

I wonder if the Minister could respond to this, because surely this can’t be the case.  In particular whether she agrees that the law in this area could be strengthened by taking the following actions

 - A 4 (2) direction should apply to all aspects of properties in a conservation area [not just those visible from the highway, waterways or open space]

And

- There should be a mandatory requirement for a character appraisal to be completed within 12 months of the introduction of a 4 (2) direction - and in the meantime only limited and defined planning applications to be determined.

Appeals - overturned and expensive

The next argument is that whilst Local authorities do have the power to reject planning applications it’s difficult and expensive to do so. The developers appeal, eventually get their way and the Council just wastes tax payers money by refusing in the first instance.

One local councillor even went further and suggested that “if you overturn too many of these you’d soon find yourself being personally charged for the costs”.

Could the Minister confirm that a councillor properly exercising his/her function in considering a planning application does not run the risk of being personally charged with the cost of an appeal?

It also seems to me that objectors should have the same right of appeal as applicants.  Planning officers and committee members do make mistakes. It is not equitable that only the applicant can appeal against a decision. 

Birmingham City Council and Allotments

This takes me to the final point. The planning application which was approved by Birmingham City Council included development upon, and consequently loss of, allotment spaces.

Allotment spaces for which there is evidenced and acknowledged demand.

The application was granted despite the fact that

-      it had no regard for the City Councils’ own UDP [Unitary Development Plan]

-      it was contrary to the own cabinet decision of 29^th June, which fully supported measures of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 including the increase of local food production, by amongst other things “allowing more allotments.”; something which was pointed out to the Planning Committee at the time.

Would the minister not agree that this seems perverse for a planning committee to arrive at a decision - within a matter of days - which is so contrary to the Council’s own policies?

What now?

The residents of the Moor Pool Estate have been failed by Birmingham City Council. By not preparing a Character Appraisal in time, despite having had more than 19 years to do it, the planning application was not constrained by such an appraisal.

The Council claims to have a clear commitment to produce character appraisals for all its conservation areas, but so far has done so for only 9 out of its 28 Conservation areas.

Clearly it can be done quickly, as was the case for Digbeth, but in the case of the Moor Pool Estate, it seems that even if the leader of the council himself chairs the Steering Group, nothing much gets done.

I ask the Minister to look again at the 1990 Act. Surely it can’t be right and equitable for an Act to impose a statutory duty, without being more specific as to when this duty should be performed. “From time to time” - just isn’t good enough.

Leave a CommentYour e-mail will not be displayed on this website

1. Name *
2. Email *
3. Comments *