HC Deb 18 October 1944 vol 403 cc2451-61

2.59 P.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown

I beg to move, in page 46, line 35, at end, insert: and, (c) Where an objection that the working of the farm or holding would be adversely affected is lodged by the owner or occupier, the local planning authority shall, before submitting the order affecting the farm or holding to the Minister, obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. We had a long discussion on this matter on the Committee stage, and I do not want to go into details. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary began by saying, in a rather Hitlerite way, that he was determined that his Department should have powers to prevent what it wanted to prevent, but that, at the end of his remarks, he gave us to understand that he realised that the maintenance of agricultural production was more important than the planning of agricultural buildings, and that an interim development order deals with these matters.

I should like some further explanation, because there are a good many hon. Friends of mine who want to know a little more about the interim development order. They want to know what it is likely to contain and how it will deal with the question of agricultural buildings. If the same Order were applied to, say, Scotland as to Yorkshire, or the towns in Sussex, it would quite unnecessarily interfere with a lot of buildings which are necessary for production. I do not want to enlarge on that because we had a good deal of discussion on the subject earlier. Buildings on agricultural holdings in different parts of the country cannot be stereotyped. We were assured that the Minister of Agriculture would be consulted in this planning, and the object of this Amendment is that agricultural producers should be consulted by the planning authorities before any Order is given. Then the Minister quoted the Scott Report. It is quite true that the gist of the Scott Report was that special criteria would not be adopted outside the suitability or otherwise of agricultural buildings, and it is with that object in view that this Amendment is moved. We think the agricultural community ought to be consulted through the Minister of Agriculture or his Committee. This proviso is most important, because agri- culture varies in different parts of the country and according to the different crops that are grown.

3.3 P.m.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

I beg to second the Amendment.

On the Committee stage I was unable to be here, and as I do feel rather strongly about this Clause, I hope I may be excused if I speak for a little longer than is normal. I understand the Ministry's attitude in not agreeing to withdraw the Clause the other day was, first, that they wanted power to deal with certain abuses that might occur in connection with agricultural buildings, and, secondly, that they did not wish the agricultural industry to be dealt with as something apart from other industries. Up to a point I feel sympathy with both those views. There have been mistakes made in agricultural buildings, as in other buildings, and I am quite certain that no agriculturist wants to be put in a special class and given special treatment, but I do hope that the Minister will recollect that, following up that line of thought, he does not want to be treated purely from an amenity point of view. Agriculturists want their buildings to be treated in the same way as the buildings of manufacturers would be treated. I feel there is a danger that the views of certain people on town planning committees with regard to agricultural buildings are rather out of date. They look for tithe barns rather than Dutch barns and the old-fashioned clamp bricks and stone rather than cement, and so on. Those things are hand produced, and to-day they cannot be afforded. It is inevitable that modern materials such as corrugated iron, cement, and things of that sort are used, and I therefore hope it will be remembered that the agricultural industry wants to be treated like other industries and work on an economic basis and not purely from the amenity point of view for the benefit of town dwellers and the rest of the population.

I feel that the Clause as it stands cannot be welcomed. Under the interpretation Section, No. 53, of the 1932 Act, buildings include structures and erections and practically anything that is built round the farm will come under this head. Even a stone wall or a shelter made of corrugated iron, or anything of that sort, would come under this Clause. I want to suggest a case as it would be under this Clause and as it would be under the Amendment we are suggesting. A small owner-occupier wishes to put up a building, or, possibly, a shelter along one side of his yard, with some corrugated iron. Under this Clause it would be necessary for him to apply to the surveyor of the local rural district council and the town planning committee. Probably he would be expected to produce a plan, but certainly he would have to produce some sort of specification. On that committee there might be a number of people who thought very much more of the amenity side than of the economic side. They might not agree to it.

The Parliamentary Secretary said the other day that such a person would have the right of appeal to the Minister, and so on, but I want the House to consider for a moment what that actually means. Perhaps he would appeal, in the first case, to the county council, to the town planning committee there, who would be rather 10th, possibly, to interfere. He would then go to the regional officer. As a rule, I do not think the regional officer is very anxious to interfere with local authorities. Then possibly the farmer would come to me. A question would be asked in Parliament and, possibly there would be a talk on the Adjournment, and I doubt, really, whether we should get any satisfaction on either side. We seldom do.

Under the Amendment the procedure would be this: In most counties they have either executive or advisory joint councils for town planning. In either case, whether they are advisory or executive, all the local authorities in the county, the rural district councils and the county council are working together. I think it could surely be agreed that all counties could have a general committee for considering agricultural buildings on which agriculturists and town planning people would be represented. It would be quite easy to do that under the amended Clause. I think the Amendment has purposely been drawn this way, because we cannot see what the position will be after the war. The war agricultural committees and the county agricultural committees may be fused in some way. The point really is that some representatives, either direct representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture or elected repre- sentatives from the county, representing agricultural interests, would have an opportunity of sitting on that committee to consider these plans. I feel that, in that way, much time might be saved because, quite apart from all the bother of which I spoke, and all the time taken up through the matter being referred to one authority and another, and finally being brought to this House, months might elapse and the reason for erecting the buildings might have gone completely. I suggest that if this Amendment can be included, the work of agriculturists will be less likely to be interfered with, and the control of amenities wanted by the town planning authorities could be equally strong, without being so strong that it would become a burden to those who have to provide them.

3.12 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb

I wish to support the Amendment, but I wish to make it quite clear that agriculturists, as a whole, are not against the proper planning of the countryside. I think it will be found that, in the past, those people who have done most in advocating the preservation of the rural beauties of the country have come from the country itself and not from the urban areas. It is not an object of this Amendment, nor is it my object in supporting it, to oppose good planning, but there may be very many cases where regulations made by the town planning authority may interfere with production. To-day, more than ever, the country is universal in its demand that there must be as much produced from the soil of this land as is practicable and possible. It would be regrettable if any action taken by a local planning authority were to interfere with that being achieved. We cannot, however, definitely say to-day that a farm is suitable for, or should be allotted to, one particular type of farming. They are constantly changing. A farm may change, because customs change, or, at the present time, the work of the farm may be changed considerably because of an order made by the Minister of Agriculture. A farm may have been only a grass farm, not requiring any buildings, but, if the Minister says it must be a farm for the production of milk there arises the necessity to provide the staff and buildings necessary for that type of farming. I would not be against temporary buildings, if they are not eyesores; it does not necessarily mean that they should be ramshackle tin sheds.

I am not arguing about the type of building to be put up. What I am saying is that, where these changes take place and it is necessary to provide buildings, those buildings should be of a suitable character. It may be that the views of an authority on agriculture are not those of the Minister himself, and I think we are only asking for something which is just and in the interests of the community as a whole, and not merely in the interests of agriculture, when we ask that these proposals should be subject to consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture would be responsible in this House, and, consequently, we should have an opportunity of clearing up any difficulties that may arise here in this House, where, I think, a great deal of the work to be done by local authorities should be reviewed.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale

I hope the Minister will resist this Amendment. I am as anxious as anybody else that agriculture should be developed to the fullest possible extent, but I am also anxious that other forms of industry should be developed, and, if this Amendment is carried, there will be no reason why there should not have to be similar consultations with the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers.

Brigadier-Genera Clifton Brown

In the Bill the Minister of Transport is consulted about roads, and the Minister of Health about something else, so that it would be no innovation if the Minister of Agriculture were to be consulted.

Mr. Dugdale

Roads are public utilities. I still maintain that, if the Minister of Agriculture is to be consulted about private farms, the President of the Board of Trade should, equally well, be consulted about every factory before it is made to conform with good planning principles. I hope the Minister will persist in his demand that the rural districts, not less than the towns, should conform to good planning, and, if he does accept this Amendment he will undoubtedly find himself in great difficulty when he comes to plan the countryside.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

There seems to me to be a paradox in the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). The Minister of Agriculture, at present, has to say what buildings are suitable and should be erected for milk and dairy purposes. In all country districts the Minister has his representatives on the county war agricultural committees, who have to see whether the buildings on any farm are suitable for agriculture. That is not the position with the Board of Trade. Fortunately for them, industry, so far, has had far less control than agriculture, and it is to tidy up the position that my hon. Friend. has put down this Amendment. Surely it will not be in the interests of the community that one body, the war agricultural committee, should "vet" any buildings for one purpose and that another body, a planning authority, should "vet" buildings for another purpose. When this is regionalised and decentralised, what it comes down to is the local war agricultural committee, and, after the war, their successors, whoever they are. I suggest that this Amendment is of considerable importance to rural areas. It is not proposed in order to favour the erection of unsightly buildings in the country; it is to enable the farmer to say what type of building is suitable for agricultural purposes.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

I think the House will sympathise with the desire of agriculturists to see that they do not have imposed upon them ridiculous conditions in regard to the economic pursuit of their trade, but I think the Amendment imposes a handicap upon local planning authorities in the way of delay that is quite inexcusable. If hon. Members had asked that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should consult the Minister of Agriculture, which I am sure he will do, that would have seemed to me to be reasonable, but that the local planning authority, before it even submits its plan to the Ministry, must obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture will make cumbrous the whole proceedings under this Bill. I suggest to the Minister—I am sure he must realise it already—that we want to have these plans facilitated so that people can understand what is going to happen and have an opportunity to appeal to the Minister. No Minister of Town and Country Planning, if he received an appeal from the farming community, would dare endorse a plan which would be an injustice. I therefore think it would be wise to withdraw the wording and leave it to the assurance of the Minister that their interests will be safeguarded.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. McEntee (Walthamstow, West)

I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, I have listened carefully, particularly to the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. He said the town planning authority should consult the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but the Amendment does not say anything about "consult." It says "obtain the approval" of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That might be rather cumbersome and cause very great delay. An hon. Member who spoke later argued that the delay that would be caused by the Bill as it stands at present would be very great, but the delay would be much greater if the Amendment were adopted. There would have to be an approach to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries through local representatives and there would be a lot of delay there. The county council of an area is competent to deal with the farmers. I have no doubt that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will consult the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on matters regarding farms within the area of the planning authority, but to say that before the planning authority can do anything to present a case it must first have the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is a dangerous thing and one that I would not tolerate myself. As one living in a town and having to submit, and being willing to submit, to the conditions imposed on the towns, I see no reason why a privilege should be given to agricultural areas, which might undo the good work done in a neighbouring town.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

Perhaps I had better reply to this Debate since I dealt with the same matter when it came before the House in Committee. I know that all my hon. and gallant Friends who represent rural constituencies and farmers desire exactly the same thing as I do in this matter. I can only attribute their action in putting down this Amendment to my own incapacity when the Bill was in Committee, and if I really gave the appearance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) that I was adopting a rather Hitlerite attitude, I must indeed have failed. He was good enough, with his usual charm, to say that I got better as the afternoon proceeded. My hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Amendment and who had not the advantage of being here on the last occasion, has really got a quite incorrect view of the way in which this machinery works. Let me explain it again to the House. What we seek to do here is to remove an exception from planning control, the removal of which was recommended by the Scott Committee. Whatever may be thought of the Scott Committee and its Report, nobody has yet accused it of having a bias against the interests of agriculture, and nobody will. There are two main paragraphs in the Report dealing with that matter. There is paragraph 96 and paragraph 164, and it was to the latter that my hon. and gallant Friend was referring: The present exemption granted to agricultural buildings is unsatisfactory. All buildings should come under review, but it is recognised that special criteria will need to be adopted in considering the suitability or otherwise of agricultural buildings from the amenity point of view. There need seldom, if ever, be any incompatibility between good appearance and utilitarian economy on the farm. That view is shared by all my hon. and gallant Friends. I could not help remembering when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was speaking that not long before the war I visited the beautiful constituency he so ably represents to address a meeting of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I know this passionate affection with which the farming community regard the beauty of their countryside, and they desire that we should be in a position to stop some outrage perpetrated, perhaps, by someone who is alien to the traditions and does not share their love of their countryside.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) asked a question or two about the general interim development order and what control there would be over that order. Let me tell him at once that there is a statutory provision that that order has to be laid before this House. It does not need an affirmative resolution, but there will be ample opportunity for my hon. and gallant Friend when the general interim development order, which I adumbrated on the last occasion, is made, to deal with it, if he feels that the working interests of the farm are neglected. After all, farming is a great industry. I could not agree more with what has been said on that subject on both sides of the House. If they regarded the order as unsatisfactory from the point of view of that great industry, I am certain that the very able representatives of agriculture in this House would make their comments known. We are not concerned to stop utilitarian buildings being put up. A utilitarian building can be of good design. I must not repeat what I said on the last occasion, but I wish that Members of the House would get rid of the absurd idea that good design or good architecture consists of some ornament added to a building when it is otherwise complete, to render it ridiculous in the mock Tudor or "Jerrybethan" manner. Every building can be of good design and I believe it is the desire of everybody in the House that these buildings should be of good design. I explained the machinery on the last occasion and that many buildings could be mentioned in the interim development order itself and could then be erected without any need to apply for a planning consent.

Colonel Clarke

Could things such as a small shed be put into the interim development order?

Mr. Strauss

Anything could be. I am not going into details now except to assure the House of what will be obvious, that when we are considering the Schedule for the interim development order we shall consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) gave a description of a number of appeals, but it is much simpler than that. The moment the local planning authority, which is the interim development authority, has refused the application in those cases where application will have to be made, the applicant can appeal direct to my right hon. Friend without any intervening steps.

I hope I have conveyed to my hon. and gallant Friend a less unfriendly im- pression on this occasion. I have purposely, in courtesy to him, in dealing with this Amendment gone into what I think has been in the minds of those who moved and supported it. I ought, perhaps, to add, though it may be untactful, that their Amendment is really meaningless, because it deals with a non-existing Order. The way the control works is not under the provisions of this Bill which we have been considering hitherto, but under the Acts of 1932 and 1943. The person who wishes to develop land can at once do such development as is permitted by the general interim development Order itself, and I repeat that that Order is laid before this House, although it is not the subject of an affirmative Resolution. The development could be, permitted by that Order itself, and in regard to buildings for agricultural use and especially such as might be required to be used for dealing with an emergency, I have little doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will recommend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning that there should be appropriate buildings scheduled to the Order itself. Where, however, the development is not permitted by the Order itself, and the local authority refuses permission for the development, then an appeal goes straight to my right hon. Friend. Where it was alleged that the refusal of the application would make impossible the efficient working of the farm, of course it would be necessary for my right hon. Friend, in dealing with that appeal, to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Sir J. Lamb

He will be doing what we ask him to do.

Mr. Strauss

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that he will be doing what I am certain he, and others, intended to ask by this Amendment, which, for the reasons I have given, does not in fact carry out their intention. Several times in the course of this Bill it has been explained to the Committee, or the House, that we do not put into a Bill provisions for consultation between Ministers who are colleagues. Where another Minister has a statutory function, it may be done where his consent is required to make an act valid, but in the sort of case the supporters of this Amendment had in mind it would be bad constitutional practice to mention the need for consultation. I hope I have dealt with most of the points in the minds of my hon. Friends, whose sincere sympathy with the cause of agriculture and the beauty of the countryside I know well, and I hope with the assurance I have given, they may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.