FACTORY DEVELOPMENT, MERTON (PLANNING PERMISSION) (Hansard, 14 February 1957)

§ Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)
The matter I desire to raise tonight is a somewhat tragic story of the frustration of an industry in this country in the face of what I can only describe as a complete dichotomy of interest and ambition between two Departments of Government. I realise perfectly well that within the space of approximately twenty minutes I cannot hope to give a very detailed account of what has transpired in this case. Nevertheless, I shall hope to prevail on the Minister to have another look at a decision which he took in the matter of the location of an industry in London which is trying to operate in overcrowded and hopelessly inadequate conditions, and which tried to fulfil its ambition to obtain new land.
The history in this case is, I fear, somewhat typical of what goes on too often with enterprising firms which find themselves confronted with that vast new bureaucracy which has, I think, been called the "new despotism," which my own party bears equal responsibility for producing and which we now must try and get into gear and suited to the economic requirements of our country. Years ago, I wrote a little pamphlet on the location of industry. I fear that it is not known, and practically nobody here has ever read it; but what I said then still holds good. Our job in administering the affairs of this country is to try to make things easy for a man or an industry trying to do something good for the country's economy, not to put difficulties in the way.
For fifteen months, from the moment when it obtained a development certificate from the Board of Trade, this company strove to secure planning permission from an urban district council in Surrey so that it might secure and use land for a new factory. The seriousness of the case, in my judgment, lies in the unmerited frustration of what was a very great enterprise. For obvious reasons, I 1584 do not wish to mention the name of the company, although I have in fact sent to the Minister a very detailed brief on the case so that he knows most of the facts. So far as I can judge, there is not a bit of party politics in the matter at all, and therefore I was not very worried lest he should be able to "get one over" on me if I did send him the brief.
This company has a big export potential and a very promising market in the United States. I may perhaps say, incidentally, that it is a company which manufactures powered hand tools, such as drills, buffers and the like. It was quite recently approached by an enormous American chain store and mail order company to provide 10,000 units, but was simply unable to accept the order, an order which would have been worth in the neighbourhood of £160,000 sterling and which would, incidentally, have earned dollars.
The Minister may say that the procedure has been gone through as laid down by existing legislation, notably under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; an appeal was made, an inquiry was held by an inspector of his Department, the Minister considered his inspector's report and then gave his decision. He may say that he cannot really go back on his decision.
If the Minister were to reply on those lines, I should quite understand it, but I should make two important points. I cannot find any law which says that a Minister cannot have second thoughts. Indeed, I claim that there is at least one case, involving a cement company in Derbyshire, when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, then Mr. Silkin, did as Minister in fact go back on a decision made by him after a public inquiry, though in that case he gave it in favour of the planning authority.
Since I submitted the documents in this case to the Minister to examine, a rather curious thing has happened. The land in question is being reserved by the Surrey Planning Authority for the use of non-conforming users within the county. Yet, although the Minister has allowed two appeals in the case of industries from outside which wanted to go to this land, since I sent the Minister the documents a third case has come up.
1585 This is the case of a company which apparently wants to bottle and distribute—and I find it wholly deplorable—what I would describe as "a soft American drink". I gather I am not offending any company when I use the suffix of the hyphenated name of this drink, which is a "Cola" drink. I cannot understand how it is possible for any planning authority to say it is not right that an outside industry manufacturing powered tools which has a big export trade should have this land, yet it is right for an outside industry to come in and have a bottling and distributing organisation on the same land.
If the Minister has occasion after this Adjournment Motion to examine it, I will give him this information—that I do realise this "Cola" bottling plant will occupy only something like two-thirds of the requirements of the company of which I am talking. But, as a matter of principle, it seems quite unreasonable that our export ambitions and aspirations should be treated in this way. If the Minister sticks to the claim that a decision, once given, is irrevocable, then there is very little that can be done by this firm—a firm established in 1940, at a critical time, with great success behind it, and now being confronted with all these difficulties.
What is left to the company to do? Does it start an application order again and again go through the whole system of trying to get permission? The land in question, in point of fact, is owned by a reputable company which gave an option to the company which I am discussing. The curious thing is that these owners were given permission to develop in 1946. Yet, when the Minister was applied to, to ask if that permission was still valid, his Department said that they were not prepared to express an opinion.
What is going on behind the scenes? I sometimes wonder whether important cases like that ever really get to the Minister. I have been a member of the governing body of this country, and I am aware that the Minister is physically incapable of seeing every case. When I tell the House that this company's proposed factory site is within 900 yards of the frontier between Metropolitan London and Surrey, they will realise how artificial is the distinction which is being levelled against this company. This company is a non-conforming user in the 1586 Metropolitan area, yet because it happens to be 900 yards on the wrong side of the frontier it is being treated in this way.
I also want to discuss the conduct of the inquiry. Although an industrial development certificate had been given by the Board of Trade, after an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the case, including a visit to the site and consideration of all the planning responsibilities so far as that Department was concerned, when it came to the inquiry, there was no representative of the Board of Trade there. We all know the weakness of this procedure—a matter at present before the Franks Committee, and one which I brought to the attention of Sir Anthony Eden some time ago in connection with the proposed atomic power plant at Bradwell-on-Sea, in Essex. One cannot examine witnesses who might be favourable to one's case, because they come from another Department of the Government.
In this case, the deputy clerk of the urban district council conducted the case on behalf of the planning authority. I have no wish to imply criticism of the gentleman, but the deputy clerk of an urban district council is hardly the appropriate person to engage in a case in which experienced Queen's Counsel are appearing for the objectors and the applicants. I do not think that he had the necessary knowledge and experience behind him. Of all things, he had apparently been briefed to say that this company had not been trying hard enough in the export market. What a farce such an inquiry is!
I have sent the Minister figures of this company's export achievements. The industrial development certificate, when granted, included the phrase: … proposed development conforms to the proper distribution of industry in the country as a whole. In the foreword to the development plan for Surrey, the then chairman of the county council made this comment about planning in general: There is a general recognition and acceptance today of the need for sound town and country planning, so far as this can be achieved within the practical limitations of our country's difficult economic situation. Within that context, what a shabby way to treat an enterprising company which wishes to enter the county!
1587 Is there any evidence to show that the land will be used for non-conforming users for which it is reserved? As a matter of fact, it is land which is expensive to develop and only a fairly solid company could go into that sort of expense. I am prepared to bet that within five years, unless something is done about this sort of case, that land will still be undeveloped and not built on. There is no record whatsoever of a non-conforming user having been rehoused on this land.
I want to revert to the sort of figures for exports of this company with which we are dealing, and I make no apology for emphasising exports. I think the Minister will accept that this is a prime consideration. This company is at present exporting goods valued at about £167,000. It believes that if it had this land and could build this new factory, on present form—one must have these balances in one's argument—it could export goods valued at about £630,000, a fairly substantial proportion of that sum in dollars. Furthermore, although present production is largely concerned with electric motor powered tools, a new market is developing for tools operated by a compressed air system, in other words, a vast potential market waiting to be entered.
There is another point. Supposing this company is made to transfer its operations to a site far away. What will happen to its labour force, a large proportion of which is women? It takes three months for a woman to be trained for winding operations. I am not an electrical engineer, but the Minister and I probably understand what is involved in that. If the factory were sent away, it would certainly lose most of the women winders and staff, because women are not easy to shift. They want to be near their homes and, at best, are prepared to commute. Unless the new factory is near Fulham, the company will lose a large part of its existing trained female labour.
At the inquiry a Mr. Gale gave evidence in support of the county planning authority, to be more precise, in support of the urban district council. Mr. Gale. I suppose, had been brought into consultation with Mr. Durrant, the chief planning officer of the county. At the inquiry, Mr. Gale said two rather significant 1588 things. If I had not seen the typescript of the report of the inquiry, I should not have believed it. I quote to the Minister what Mr. Gale said: I agree that the industrial development certificate will have been given after a review by the Board of Trade of all the circumstances, national and local. I do not desire to take any evidence out of context. When the Minister looks at the document, he will accept that it is not out of context. Mr. Gale also said: My objection is founded"— And this is county Chauvinism if ever I saw it— upon the county boundary"— which is nine hundred yards away. I cannot consider the matter apart from the county, because my appearance here is to implement the county policy. I cannot, therefore, concede that the county policy can be in any way wrong. I would just revert in history to the inquiry into the Surrey county plan. On the 14th day of that particular inquiry, Mr. Durrant, who was the chief planning officer, referring to another objector on that occasion who wanted to develop—the Minister knows the name—said: If this company had a development certificate from the Board of Trade, I would feel that would be,the answer to the planning authority. They would accept the fact that the labour position would not be upset by the influx of a new firm. When this evidence given by the chief planning officer was brought to the attention of Mr. Gale at this inquiry, he said: That does not affect my view. I ask the Minister how he can reconcile these two points of view.
I am particularly anxious to try to help this firm. I am in the happy position of not having to disclose an interest, not even a constituency interest. The hon. Member opposite in whose constituency this factory site lies, whom I did consult about the propriety of rasing this matter, had no objection. I think that the Minister is duty bound to have another look at this case. I have tried to show that there has been an occasion where the Minister had a look at a decision made. I have said that I do not think there is any law which prevents him from looking at this decision. I believe that new factors have arisen—for instance, allowing this "Cola" bottling industry to come in virtually in the same position 1589 —a few yards away from the site I am discussing tonight.
I think that we owe much to a firm which is the inspiration of a family of enterprise and which can make a big contribution to exports, but which has been treated very badly indeed. That is where my case rests. I would ask the Minister to investigate it again.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)
The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has raised several questions on one particular case which concerns the policy of planning authorities towards industries which are concentrating particularly on the export trades. He has made it clear that he is concerned primarily with this one particular firm, at present based in the London area. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for the way he has co-operated with me and my Department in the discussions in this case.
At the present time this firm occupies premises in the London area, covering an area of about 38,000 sq. feet, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the firm wishes to put up a factory of about 60,000 sq. feet in the Merton and Morden District Council area. It applied to the planning authority for permission to go ahead. It was refused that planning permission chiefly on the ground that the use of premises for industry in metropolitan Surrey should be restricted to the use by non-conforming industries whose relocation was desirable—non-conforming industries being those industries which are already located in non-industrial areas, as a rule in the Greater London area.
There is no doubt at all that the industrial competition—and indeed other competition—for land in metropolitan Surrey is very acute indeed. In order to prevent the continual expansion of the Metropolis, the Surrey County Council is co-operating in trying to establish a green belt, which is in fact included in the county development plan, which has not yet been approved but is at present under consideration.
As one would expect, on the London side of the green belt demand for land is 1590 very, very great indeed. That being so, the local planning authority in allocating what limited land is available tries to keep a balance between competing demands. In those circumstances, I think it was very natural that Surrey should decide, as it did, to reserve land for industrial development for the relocation of those non-conforming industries which have got to remain within the area. The fact that the land available for industrial use in metropolitan Surrey can, unfortunately, take only a fraction of the industries which will be displaced from non-industrial London areas is in itself very important.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed doubts whether this limited area of land in metropolitan Surrey will ever in fact be taken up—in the near future, at any rate—by industrialists coming out of London. I agree with him entirely that so far this land has not been taken up, but I urge him to consider that in the circumstance it can hardly be otherwise because the resiting of badly-situated industries in London cannot be done all at once, and very often it will have to wait until the area where they are sited—that is, in London, Fulham or wherever it may be—is to be re-developed.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Board of Trade issued an industrial development certificate and that subsequently the planning authority, upheld by my right hon. Friend, took a course which apparently was in conflict with the decision and action of the Board of Trade; but, again, while the Board of Trade undoubtedly did issue the certificate, it is also true that the certificate itself carries no assurance that planning permission will be forthcoming at a later date. It is simply an essential preliminary without which an application for planning permission cannot be made.
It is important to understand that the granting of an industrial development certificate is without prejudice to the planning decision which, after all, is based on considerations affecting the use of land rather than consideration that affect trade or the future of our export industry.
This firm's appeal against the planning refusal which was inflicted upon it was dismissed by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government on the ground 1591 that its proposal meant not merely a relocation of its works, but also a substantial expansion. I concede at once that from the purely commercial point of view that may seem curious, but to have allowed the appeal would certainly have conflicted with Surrey's policy to reserve the available land simply for relocation of non-conforming industries rather than their relocation and expansion. That is an important distinction which has been quite deliberately made by the Surrey County Council and which forms part and parcel of the statement of policy which accompanies its development plan.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for speedy decisions, and, indeed, more speedy decisions than have been forthcoming in the last year or two. As the House knows, planning authorities are required in the ordinary course of events, to give their decisions in two months, and it is to be regretted that in this case the firm had to wait about five months.

§ Mr. Snow
It is expensive, too.

§ Mr. Bevins
I agree. It is also true that if an applicant has not received a decision from a planning authority within two months, he has the right to appeal to the Minister as if the application had, in fact, been turned down. I also desire to express my regret that the consideration of this firm's appeal took as long as six months. In mitigation, I can only say that the Department of my right hon. Friend has been extraordinarily busy in the consideration of appeals in recent times, but I should like to add an assurance that steps have been taken to expedite the consideration of these appeals.
The hon. Gentleman has also complained—I understand the nature of his complaint and sympathise with it—that in the administration of planning we ought to recognise the high and urgent claims of the export trade. While that may be so, it is not always easy to reconcile commercial and planning con- 1592 siderations. They do not always march together. Very often planners defer to the point of view of business people and exporters, and generally to commercial considerations. But it is not always possible to do so. Unfortunately, this was such a case, chiefly, as I say, because of the deliberate and avowed policy of the Surrey planning authority.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether anything could be done about the decision of the Minister, and suggested that there might have been times when the decisions of Ministers have been revoked. From advice I have been able to obtain, these planning decisions on appeal are final and irrevocable and if this firm or other firms desired to reopen the issue, the initial procedure would have to be gone through all over again.
I have discussed this matter with the hon. Gentleman, and while I can hold out no hope of any modification of my right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal, we are most anxious to be helpful, because, of course, exports are important, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says. If he would be prepared to leave it with my right hon. Friend and myself, we should be prepared to discuss this matter with the Board of Trade with a view to suggesting suitable alternative sites where perhaps labour difficulties are not very great and where planning obstacles are not likely to arise. For the moment, I cannot go beyond that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far as it is possible for my right hon. Friend and myself to be of assistance, we shall be only too glad to help.

§ Mr. Snow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his final remarks. I am optimistic that he will do something about this, bearing in mind that it is vital that this firm should not have to lose its trained female staff. In my judgment, a site must be found near to the existing site, and I hope that he will do something about that.