HOUSES, CROSTON (PLANNING APPEAL) (Hansard, 4 December 1958)

§ Mr. Clifford Kenyon (Chorley)

The question which I wish to raise tonight concerns a local inquiry held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 1st July of this year regarding an appeal by a builder—a Mr. T. J. Bretherton—in the village of Croston against the refusal of the Chorley District Council, acting on behalf of the Lancashire County Council, permitting the erection of six houses in the village of Croston. There are many features of this inquiry, and the refusal of the Minister to agree to this application, to which I wish to call special attention. In all these matters, whether the applicant is a public authority, such as a local council, or a private individual, the application ought to be dealt with upon the same principle, and dealt with justly.

In this case I feel that the applicant has not been fairly dealt with, and I will put the facts before the Minister in he hope that he will meet the Minister of Supply in this matter—for it is his objection that seems to have ruled the whole of the inquiry—to see if the position can be reconsidered.

The plot of land in question is 0.6 of an acre in extent, and lies at the junction of Moor Road and Pear Tree Road, in the village of Croston. It is surrounded by houses. It falls within the safeguarding area set up by the Ministry of Supply and lies about a mile from the explosives depot at Ulnes Walton.

The difficulty arises in this way. Other applications to build within the safeguarding area have been granted. There are two houses on another road a little further away from this place. There are houses at the top end of Moor Road which is in the safeguarding area. The local authority has purchased a piece of land on which it is proposed to erect about 83 houses on a site, part of which lies within the safeguarding area as set out by the Ministry of Supply. Forty-two of these houses have been built and the Ministry has raised no objection.

1497 It is stated that the six houses which Mr. Bretherton asks for cannot be built because of the danger and loss which would follow if an explosion occurred. But surely, the loss following an explosion affecting 60 houses would be much greater flan one which affected six houses. From one point in the safeguarding area which involves the building site of the Chorley and District Rural Council there is direct access to the explosive point. There are no buildings in the way. Were there an explosion, the blast would directly strike the housing site; but the six houses to which I have referred would be safeguarded by other houses. If an explosion occurred, the effect would first be felt by the other houses before those houses were damaged. That is one of the reasons why I am raising the matter tonight.

I feel that the inspector who held the inquiry was not satisfied with the case advanced by the Minister of Supply. The last page of his report and observations reveals that the inspector made no recommendation that the appeal should be either allowed or rejected. He left it entirely to the Minister. He heard the inquiry and all the circumstances and then threw the ball back to the Minister on the point that the situation is due entirely to the action of the Ministry of Supply and not to any planning opposition to the houses. The position is left in a very unsatisfactory way by the inspector and I feel that the Minister should re-examine the whole situation in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply. In paragraph 23, in page 3 of the inspector's report, it is stated that the local authority is likely to build more houses on the estate within the next four to five years.

Altogether 85 houses will be built, and 60 will be sited within the safeguarding area. The Ministry of Supply has indicated that it has no objection to this development. The safeguarding restrictions were placed on in April, 1952. According to paragraph 25, this application is the first which has been refused because of the Ministry of Supply's restrictions only. Others have been refused because of those restrictions plus objections to planning development.

I want to comment on the evidence given by Mr. A. F. Cooper, Assistant Secretary of the Lands Administration 1498 Branch. He said, in paragraph (c), in page 4: It is not suggested that the Ulnes Walton depot is particularly vulnerable. Any explosion is unlikely, but accidents can happen. That is the point, and on the probability of an accident he brings this objection. I come to paragraph (i) in which he states, referring to the local authority housing site: The site is that bit further away from the Explosives Depot; part of it is in fact, outside the safeguarding area. It is some 160 ft. away from the houses, which are the subject of the appeal. It is stated that the risk of damage is less than that for the appeal site. Here is what the Ministry of Supply witness says: (ii) The assessed degree of damage is less than that for the appeal site and is considered as being an acceptable risk. When he made that statement that witness had never seen the site. The inspector comments that the witnesses of the Ministry had never seen the site. They must have looked at a map and from that map made this opposition. When a witness goes before an inspector at an inquiry and puts forward objections of this nature, and then has to admit that he had never seen the place, I say that that is absolutely intolerable. He could not make statements like these in good faith if he had seen both the local authority site and the site which was the subject of the appeal.

These objections are entirely unfounded. The appeal ought to have been allowed. I am fully aware that the Minister cannot say tonight that he can give way, but there could be further discussions between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on this question and further consideration could be given to it. The inspector's observations, reported in the last page, are very sound. He said: The only issue to be considered in this case is the reasonableness or otherwise of the safety restrictions which the Ministry of Supply insist should be observed. There are no other grounds for opposing the development; on the contrary there are several factors in support of the proposal:—

(a) The site is within the limits of the urban area; there are existing houses on all sides."

The houses which would be built would themselves be shielded by other houses. That is not so on the housing site of the 1499 local authority. The observations continued: The proposal is a logical form of development which would help to link the Local Authority's estate to the existing development along Moor Road. In its present condition the site is not attractive aesthetically; the proposal would help to improve local amenities. There is an acute shortage of building land in Croston. The inspector pointed out that: the advice tendered by the Ministry of Supply cannot be ignored and must be considered, but he left that consideration to the Minister. He recommended that it should be referred back to the Ministry of Supply. I think that is exceptionally important. It gives me the feeling that the inspector who saw the site —in opposition to the Ministry of Supply witnesses—was not satisfied that in this case justice was being done. I therefore ask tonight that the two Ministers should meet and re-examine the whole case.

The local authority site is in the safeguarding area and 60 houses are placed in that area. On one side it is directly open to the blast if any should take place from the Ulnes Walton Depot. When we consider that and compare it with the six houses which would be inside a square shielded and surrounded on each side by other houses, I feel that the Minister in refusing this appeal has not been just to the case put forward, but has allowed the Ministry of Supply to override him on the question of safety.

As I have tried to show, the question of safety applies far more on the site of the local authority, where there are 60 houses in the area, than on the site where there would be six houses, all of which would be shielded from blast by houses which are already built and which would surround them. I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)

I am rather sorry in a sense that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) has raised this question on the Adjournment. Of course he is perfectly entitled to do so, but I should have preferred to have had an informal discussion with him about it. That is still possible, as he knows.

1500 I understand the reasons which have caused him to raise the matter on the Adjournment. They are perfectly understandable. Most of my Ministry's Adjournment debates are associated with planning appeals, both those which take place on the Floor of the House and those which are crowded out, as was one the other Friday. We get a very large number of these cases—about 6,000 appeals in the course of a year—and many of them are very contentious.

This appeal certainly presents many unusual features, and they warrant some explanation. The most unusual feature, as the hon. Member said, is that this is a case in which, although an inquiry was held, the inspector who took the inquiry was not prepared to make, or rather refrained from making, any recommendation to the Minister. That in itself is very unusual, but there were special reasons why he refrained from making any recommendation to my right hon. Friend.

I ought to stress that the circumstances here were quite exceptional and had to be treated exceptionally. First of all, it is clear that from a purely planning point of view there was no objection to the proposal to build houses on this site. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member. The only objection was on safety grounds, because the site was within what is known as the safeguarding area of an explosives depôt.

It would be wrong for me to exaggerate the danger of an explosion and of damage or injury in this safeguarding area, and I concede at once that the danger of an explosion is quite remote, but, of course, if it happened there would be damage inside the area in varying degrees of intensity according to where the property or persons happened to be.

There is no absolute ban on buildings in the safeguarding area, but there is a risk of different kinds from point to point. Quite rightly, I think, the inspector who took the inquiry did not feel that he was competent to assess the risk of damage or injury due to an explosion at this depôt, and my right hon. Friend was consequently obliged to take advice from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for the depôt and who is competent, if anybody is competent, to judge what the risk is to third parties.

1501 I agree with the hon. Member that the official of the Ministry of Supply who attended the inquiry had not himself inspected the site, but the best information I can obtain is that before he gave evidence he was advised by the superintendent of the depôt, who knew the depôt and also the safeguarding area. I should also add that subsequent to the inquiry senior officials of the Ministry of Supply have visited the site and are of the same view as the superintendent of the depôt, in the sense that it would be undesirable to allow this development.

The hon. Member naturally finds this position rather bewildering, because development has been allowed in the area since the depôt was established. I do not think it would be right for me this evening to discuss the merits of all the cases which have been allowed, but I assure the hon. Member that applications are not turned down automatically or out of perversity; they are treated on their merits, as far as we are able to do so. In most cases where planning permission had been given for the building of houses, it was outline permission, which was given before the safeguarding area was established, and some of the development which has been permitted in the area has been allowed in connection with farms and smallholdings where it has been necessary for farmers and their workers to have living accommodation in the safeguarding area.

I agree, however, that the Ministry of Supply has offered no objection to the extension of the substantial housing scheme on this site, but it ought to be borne in mind that according to my information, which I hope is right, this part of the estate is a good distance from the depôt, and in any case it is not the intention to commence building for at least five years and it may be as long as seven years.

Meanwhile, of course, nobody knows—I certainly do not—whether the depôt 1502 might become less important or, for that matter, might cease to exist altogether. There is, therefore, that distinction. By contrast, the appellant mentioned by the hon. Gentleman wants to build a limited number of houses at once, which makes it rather a different case.

The hon. Gentleman has asked whether this planning appeal can be reopened. The simple answer is that my right hon. Friend has no power to reopen a planning appeal. It is always possible for a new application to be made and, if it is refused by the local planning authority, for another appeal to he entered. Naturally, in those circumstances, my right hon. Friend would consider the further planning appeal entirely afresh, and on the merits, as he saw them at that time.

Naturally, too, he would not be reluctant to go to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to discuss the matter afresh in the light of what was said at the public inquiry and, indeed, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said this evening. I should, however, stress that my right hon. Friend has been advised that there is here at least a significant risk of injury or damage to people who are in the area and, in the nature of the case, my right hon. Friend must have regard to the advice he gets from the Minister who knows more about such matters than does my right hon. Friend. It would therefore be quite wrong, in such a case, were he to ignore that advice.

As I say, a fresh appeal can be made, and whilst I cannot hold out any prospect of a different decision, we would certainly consider the appeal, not oblivious to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and certainly not oblivious to what might be said at a public enquiry.