HC Deb 10 July 1952 vol 503 cc1673-80

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

11.28 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I am very glad to have this opportunity of bringing the present position of the small village of Yeovilton to the attention of the House, and, in particular, to the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I want to say at the outset that there is no dispute either by me or the inhabitants of this small village as to the complete necessity to give priority to the needs of defence, nor should there be any imputation against either the successive station commanders at the air station or against the Admiralty surveyor.

It is fair and right to say in this House that from those people the inhabitants of Yeovilton and myself have at all times received the utmost courtesy and consideration. But I want to put certain points to the Civil Lord concerning this very small village which has to a quite exceptional extent been swamped and hemmed in by an airfield. I want to ask the Civil Lord if he has considered whether or not there is a limit, or should be a limit, to the hardships inflicted upon and the deprivations of the rights and liberties of this small community. Is there no limit which can be put either now or in the future, particularly as there is no full compensation or an alternative in many cases? It is fully understood that there cannot be full compensation, nor can alternatives be properly offered.

Some of the results of this present extension will amount to the total deprivation of a man's livelihood; in other cases, it will mean a considerable loss of amenities. Over the past 10 years, this village has been largely cut off and isolated, and 10 rights of way permanently closed. It is now proposed to close another road which forms a vital means of access to this village. As things stand at present, it is to be left with one means of access only, and that is a road which is not flood-proof and which, undoubtedly, when flying is re-started, will become a road on which traffic is bound to be subject to interruption. It is perfectly true that it is proposed to build an alternative out- going road through Limington, but I would ask the Civil Lord to give certain assurances about this.

I should like, first, an assurance that the existing road out through Ilchester will be fully maintained in at least the same state of repair as at present; secondly, that the road will not be closed as a result of further extensions, and thirdly—and this is most important—I ask very emphatically that the alternative road through Limington shall be provided before the Department closes the right of way known as Pyle Lane, because, if that is not done, then this small village community will not have one single reliable means of access to places outside. That, I am sure the Civil Lord will agree, would be an entirely intolerable position.

There are certain other factors which I think it is right should be put very strongly to the Civil Lord and to this House. As a result of the Department's proposals, the parish to which this village belongs is going to be cut completely in half. The village will almost certainly lose its school, and there will be a considerable drop in property values. To a number of individuals, that will mean a very real hardship. I admit that there is no easy answer to this subject, but I plead with the Civil Lord to bear this last factor in mind, because it is one which represents a heavy burden and a very great loss in a considerable number of cases.

I turn now to the wider and more far-reaching aspect of the position of the trunk road known as A.303. Can the Civil Lord give any assurance tonight about this, because I do not know whether that road will be interfered with later on as a result of further extensions. That I cannot tell, but I want my hon. Friend to say, if he can, what the position is with regard to that road.

There is a further point which should be mentioned, because it is one of general importance. It is the loss of farming land, which is as important almost as defence itself. Again and again we have cases of first-class farming land being taken, sometimes, one feels, without proper consideration being given first to what is being lost. In the case with which we are now concerned, two farmers are principally concerned. One of them has owned and farmed his land for some 36 years and he is now seeing his farm reduced to the status of a very small holding.

The other case is that of a tenant farmer. During the years in which he has occupied his farm, he has more than doubled the output from that land. Now he has to go. All his land is being taken. In his case it is almost impossible to assess compensation. He is losing his livelihood. I ask my hon. Friend very earnestly indeed to see whether or not he can help this man.

It is true we are now dealing with great schemes and vast proposals, but I do think it would be wrong for my hon. Friend not to go into the case of this individual and see whether he can help him in some way and whether or not it is possible for him to consult the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or anyone else, in order that this man shall not suffer undue hardship and shall receive something approaching just and fair treatment.

I do not know what intentions the Admiralty have as regards public inquiries. Is it intended to hold inquiries on the spot in order that the views of this very small community may be fully and adequately ventilated? I believe that it is right that in these cases the minority should have a full opportunity of voicing their opinions and that they should have an assurance that those opinions are fully considered by those in authority.

I appreciate that this is not an easy question for my hon. Friend to answer, but I ask him whether there are to be further extensions. If there is a possibility now of further extensions becoming necessary in the future, it may well be that any money laid out on proposals to build new roads and so on may become quite unnecessary and wasted, because ultimately the village will be uninhabitable and there will be no civilian population left to enjoy such amenities as may now be provided.

The position is grave. I believe it is exceptional. That is why I sought the opportunity of raising this matter in the House. When these proposals have been carried out, this village will be situated at the apex of a triangle two sides of which are runways at a distance of 200 or 300 yards, used by jet aircraft. I do not wish to raise the obvious points of noise and inconvenience, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that the village and its inhabitants will find themselves in a most intolerable position, hemmed in as they will be, and I am asking my hon. Friend for that reason to give very careful consideration to their case. I am asking him to say whether he thinks that in these circumstances the village can remain habitable, or whether perhaps over the years it will gradually become derelict, with the population gradually drifting away because life has become quite intolerable there.

I raise this matter not out of any desire to obstruct the Admiralty or the Civil Lord in the discharge of what must be difficult and very often painful obligations forced upon them by the defence needs, which we all recognise, of the country as a whole, but I stress my own very great and genuine concern to see that in such a case where such a small community is involved, its undoubted rights should not be ridden over roughshod by a great Department of State which cares not very greatly for such things. Before these things are lightly swept away, there should be very full inquiry and consideration in the light of the great importance which should rightly be attached to them.

11.42 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby)

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety for his constituents in the village of Yeovilton, and may I say at once that, for personal reasons, I am very sorry that there should be any anxiety about those who live in this village because it has, until quite recently, had a connection with my own family for a number of generations. No one is therefore more sorry than myself that they should be inconvenienced by these extensions of runways.

Of course, we have to pay a price for modernisation in the world today. This is a small island, and jet aircraft travel very quickly and make a certain amount of noise. If we are to move with the times, I am afraid that it is inevitable that more inconvenience will be caused to a number of people. But I must point out at once that Yeovilton is a relatively isolated village. It is some way from Yeovil itself and one could not say that it is a centre of dense population.

The Navy needs the best aircraft and the best pilots; we have to have these jet aircraft, and the pilots have to be trained in order to fly them. I am sure that the House would agree that it would be absolutely wrong that lives should be unnecessarily risked because the proper modernisation was not carried out to our airfields. Again, it would not be right that these very valuable machines should be in risk of being damaged because the landing facilities were not adequate.

In these circumstances one has the alternative either of modernising the existing airfield or starting afresh somewhere else and building an entirely new air station. I need hardly point out that it would be very much more expensive to scrap all the buildings, and the millions of pounds worth of value that has gone into the existing air station, and start again. Quite apart from that, I am certain that there would be just the same kind of difficulty with the local inhabitants of any other area which one might choose.

In the particular case of Yeovilton, as far as I am aware, the Navy are popular there, and I think it is possible to exaggerate the amount of local resentment to the extension of the runways. I was down there myself not many weeks ago and I am bound to say that I do think it is possible to exaggerate the feeling of apprehension which there is on the spot.

I think it would be best if I dealt with the various points of complaint and the ways in which the village will be inconvenienced. First, there is the question of noise. I have already admitted that jet aircraft are noisier than existing aircraft. We have to make up our minds either to have jet aircraft and to have more noise everywhere, or to try to stand still—which obviously is not possible. Jet aircraft are noisier at take-off; but what causes most nuisance is not the actual take-off but the circling to land and the circling after take-off. The Air Ministry confirm that that is what causes the most nuisance.

In this way Yeovilton will definitely be better off, because with piston-engined aircraft, and the runways as they were before, the path of the aircraft on many occasions passed almost directly over the village and very close to the church itself.

That will no longer be the case. The path of the aircraft will take a much wider sweep and they will be further away from the village than they were before, so that when the aircraft are in the air the village should be better off. Nor do I think that the noise will be intolerable. It is one of the things to which it is quite possible to get used. At an air station which I was visiting not long ago, private residents were actually constructing new houses in approximately the same kind of relationship as Yeovilton bears to the new runway.

Then there is the question of danger. I must say at once that the safety requirements have been fully complied with. The fact that the ends of the runways will now be further from the village will make it safer in the village than it was before.

With regard to the question with which my hon. Friend has dealt at some length—the roads and the isolation of the village—let me say at once that there is no intention of closing the existing road known as Pyle Lane until the new road to Limington is built, and even if work goes on—as it must—in the vicinity, a way through will be left until the new road is constructed. The actual course which that road is to take is a matter for the Ministry of Transport.

With regard to the second road running direct to Ilchester, of course I am not in a position to give any undertaking about its repair; it is not a matter for the Admiralty but for other authorities. But so far as the Admiralty is concerned, there is no present intention of trying to close that road, nor is it easy to see why there should be any need to do so in the future. My hon. Friend has also mentioned the question of the A.303 trunk road. He asked whether an assurance can be given that that will not be interfered with in the future. I cannot look so far into the future as that. All I can say at the moment is that it will remain as it is at present: there is no question of crossing it.

Now I come to the question of what is called the loss of farming land. Before I deal with that, however, perhaps I should refer to the individual cases of two of the farmers concerned. I think everyone will recognise that they are bound to suffer, and one is very sorry if certain individuals have to suffer more than others, as is inevitable when the defence requirements of the country are to be met. One farmer in particular, I know, has built up a good farm and is going to have difficulty in finding another. I will certainly give an assurance that, so far as we have any influence in finding him a new farm, we shall do everything we can to help—by asking either the Ministry of Agriculture or whoever is most appropriate to try to find him a farm—because we do recognise that he has been a very great sufferer in this matter.

I myself refute the idea that the land will be completely lost to farming. In fact, we have a very successful grass-drying plant working at Yeovilton which has been producing an output which reached 100 tons last year and which is operated at a profit by the Admiralty. Not only do we produce this tonnage, but it is tonnage of satisfactory quality. During 1951–52, for example, the protein yield was as high as 19.25 in some cases and it never went lower than 13.43. That, I think, is an achievement. So it will be seen that although this land is removed from ordinary farming, food production is carried on there in this very useful way of grass drying, which is of considerable use to the farming community.

As regards the question of hardship generally, I do not think it is true to say that the position here is unique. It is true that Yeovilton is to be in a position of great inconvenience, but the Air Ministry have a number of cases where the flightways or funnels affect villages and houses. I have actually looked at the plans of some of those.

Mr. Peyton

The point of uniqueness is that the village is hemmed in on two sides.

Mr. Digby

Yes, but it is of course much worse if the village happens to be at the end of the runways, because the aircraft are landing and taking off immediately over the village. There are a number of other cases where that is actually happening at the present time. My hon. Friend mentioned the splitting of the village in two. That is unfor- tunate, but I do not think the difficulties created by that are insuperable. Then he said that the value of the property in the village is going to drop a great deal. No one can tell that, but it is fair to say that in similar cases there has not been a noticeable drop in the value of properties. I hope that will not occur in this case.

As to a public inquiry, this is not necessary as no planning objection has been raised to the development that is taking place. As to compensation, the Admiralty, of course, are bound by statute which limits the amount of compensation payable, and we are not in a position to pay any more than the scale of Government compensation which is laid down for this and many other types of cases by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act and the Town and Country Planning Act that modifies it. Nor have we any authority to buy properties—as has been suggested—which are not needed for Naval purposes, and I do not think that we should be entitled to buy portions of the village which we did not require. Nor, indeed, do I believe that many of the villagers wish to leave in any case. Many of them have their occupations to carry on from the village and will, no doubt, wish to continue to do so.

I think it would be a mistake to deny that the Naval air station at Yeovilton does bring certain benefits to the locality; and I am quite certain—as one who lives in that part of the world—that the Navy is just as popular there as it is in many other parts of the world. A considerable amount of money is being spent there. We are just completing a large number of married quarters in Ilchester, nearby, which will bring considerable trade to the local tradesmen.

Sacrifices have obviously got to be made for the defence of this country, and I am afraid that it is the case that those sacrifices cannot always fall equally. We are very sorry for the inconvenience.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.