HC Deb 09 November 1954 vol 532 cc1017-8
14. Mr. Blenkinsop

asked the Secretary of State for War what lands adjacent to, or used in conjunction with, the Redesdale Artillery Range his Department holds, or has held, since the public inquiry in 1948, which were not included in the lands belonging to this range as determined then; and to what extent such additional lands are held and used by requisition under Defence Regulations or otherwise.

Mr. Head

As a result of negotiations with the owners following the inquiry some 1,500 additional acres were bought. In addition, 190 and 120 acres requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51 are in use at Shittleheugh and Elishaw respectively. Some 200 acres at Holy-stone are used under Defence Regulation 52. Application for the continued use of all three sites has been made to the local planning authority. Seven further sites totalling 27 acres were used until 1950 or 1951.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anxiety has been caused in the North by these new demands for land which was not referred to when the public inquiry took place two or three years ago? Is it not particularly desirable in an area like this, where there are places of special historical and religious significance, and in which some of the lands involved may possibly be included in the National Park, that special care should be taken?

Mr. Head

The inquiry took place not one or two years ago but in 1948, and the size of the Army has increased since 1948, as has also training activity. The area is, I understand, sparsely-populated moorland in Northumberland. Where-ever we go people do not want to have us. However, this matter is at the moment in the hands of the local planning authority, and I think we had better await its report.

Mr. Alport

Before my right hon. Friend decides to spend additional money on purchasing additional land for this range, will he recollect that there are strong arguments for spending that money upon improving what are, so far as the troops are concerned, the really deplorable conditions of this camp?

Mr. Blenkinsop

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay regard, in particular, to the fact that it was understood locally that the whole matter was settled when the public inquiry was held, and that there is a good deal of ill-feeling that there should be a demand for these new areas now?

Mr. Head

It is only one new area that is in question. It was impossible in 1948 to tie oneself down indefinitely. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), I would say that that is another subject, and that if he will put down a Question I will certainly give him an answer.