HC Deb 13 April 1960 vol 621 cc1431-42

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

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

In raising in the House tonight the matter of Cannock Chase, I do not think that I need elaborate the vital importance of retaining as far as possible the amenity qualities of this area of outstanding natural beauty in the Midlands. There are very few amenities of great natural beauty left in the Midlands for the benefit of the workers and the populace as a whole.

The fact of the matter is that Cannock Chase, historically of importance and important from the point of view of natural history, is something which the working population of the Midlands regard as a place to which to escape from the noise and the dust of the great productive areas of that part of the country.

My attention was drawn to the further threat to Cannock Chase by the organisation known as the Association of Friends of Cannock Chase and, subsequently, by the Rugeley District Field Club, because they suddenly realised that a further 20 acres of land was about to be the subject of quarry processes in the near future.

I raised this matter on 29th March with the Parliamentary Secretary and pointed out to him that this further spoliation of Cannock Chase was causing considerable local concern. In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary said that when the option was given to the company in question in 1951 it had been given by the Lichfield Rural District Council in that year because it knew this area was likely to be designated as of outstanding natural beauty, and it imposed suitable conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 1116.] In point of fact, the original option was given in 1948, and when it was given there was a condition that working would have to start within three years. It did not, and that is why the company in question applied for a renewal, which it got. This renewal was up to 1968, but —and I emphasise this point—without this particular condition that work should start within three years.

This is a highly important point in the argument which I wish to deploy. Before I go any further I want to make it quite clear that nothing I say tonight should be construed as critical of the planning authority or of the Lichfield Rural District Council. On the contrary, since I took up the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary I have consulted both authorities. Both have been helpful and I am most impressed with the highly complex nature of the problem as a whole.

When I addressed certain questions to the Clerk of the Lichfield Rural District Council, he wrote to me pointing out that in 1934 there had been a proposal to allot not just 20 acres but 145 acres for the purposes of quarrying in the area. That point did not strike me then as, anyway, 1934 was a long time ago. I was particularly worried about the 20 acres which had been drawn to my attention.

Further information was given to me by the clerk of the council to the effect that it was preferable, for instance, to use Cannock Chase as a source of quarrying road material rather than to use good agricultural land, and that, in any case, the superior authority, the Staffordshire County Council, was somewhat bound by the Report of the Advisory Committee on Sand and Gravel which was produced in 1948. That Report included a proposed service area for extracting this material, and that 20 acres came into that service area.

The county planning officer, to whom I also addressed questions, pointed out to me that the county planning authority had reluctantly agreed to the quarry being started although in the immediate vicinity of the area the authority had opposed further applications for quarrying because they came within an area of 29 square miles which had been recommended by the National Parks Commission as a conservation area. This is relevant because the 20 acres with which I am concerned is no more than about two miles from a case in Rugeley which had been successfully opposed by the planning authority. There is a record of these applications for development and exploitation on Cannock Chase being rejected by the Minister himself.

The county planning officer also pointed out to me that one had to take into account the proposed Cannock Chase service area for gravel and sand and the needs which had been established by the Advisory Committee to which I have referred. It was at that point that I began to worry about the 1934 proposal to permit quarrying of a total of 145 acres.

By courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary, I went to his Ministry's library and examined the designation map which is attached to the Staffordshire County Development Plan. Sure enough, I found on the designation map a large area which, so far as I could calculate— I am subject to correction—would probably allow the 145 acres.

One of the arguments which has been suggested to me by the county planning officer is that the powers which the Minister has under Sections 21 and 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to revoke options once given if circumstances justify such revocation would be costly to put into operation in this case. He suggested in a letter to me that the value of the material which could be extracted from the area had become enhanced by the proposal to establish the motorway. I am not certain to which motorway he was referring, but I suspect that it would be the Yorkshire motorway.

If that is so, there are two grounds on which I do not understand the argument. The first is that since the renewed option was given in 1952 and since the proposal for the motorway was not announced publicly until 1958, I do not understand why there should be any question of compensating on the basis of enhanced value of the material to be extracted. The second point is that even if there is a total of 145 acres which is in danger—this in itself will be viewed with grave alarm and sadness by people in the Midlands—I do not think that the public as a whole knew that such a proposal was afoot.

I am told by the leader of the Labour group on the Staffordshire County Council that he is given to understand that some twenty applications for further quarrying rights on Cannock Chase which are about to be considered may be applications for quarrying rights within the designated area which I believe to be 145 acres.

In short, I believe that this is probably an administrative tangle in the sense that an old proposal was embodied in the Staffordshire County Development Plan, that the option given on a renewal basis in 1952 was given without the condition that it should be started within three years and that, in any event, five years later this whole area was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

I believe that there is a case for the Minister to consider the revocation powers under Sections 21 and 22. I do not believe that Section 22, which refers to compensation in the event of revocation, can possibly take into account the enhanced value of the material being extracted, and I think that the Minister should have a look at this with a view to getting the planning authority to initiate revocation.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) is present. I know that she feels strongly about this, and I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) may have something to say. The Parliamentary Secre-retary should not under-estimate the importance of this amenity to the people in the industrial Midlands, and something should be done to see that this further quarrying and spoliation does not take place.

11.40 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid (Walsall, South)

Everyone living in what is ungracefully called the West Midlands conurbation will be grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for bringing up this matter, and for the diligence with which he has pursued his researches.

Those connected with the area are conscious of the great pressure there is to encroach on the green belt, and the difficulty of preserving these "lungs" which are so vital to the healthy growth of such an area. Cannock Chase was preserved for the public largely by the efforts of a previous Member of Parliament for Walsall, and the distinguished son of that city, Alderman J. A. Leckie. I therefore take the opportunity of supporting the eloquent plea made by the hon. Gentleman that this area should be preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.

11.41 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)

I hope that this debate will suffice to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him the Minister, the fact that there is considerable feeling about preserving the Chase. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised in the House. Before and during the war on innumerable occasions very good arguments were put forward why there should not be encroachment on the Chase. Again and again during the war efforts were made to broaden the area to be used for military purposes.

People in the area, and their representatives, were prepared to accept some encroachment if it could be proved that it was necessary, in the interests of winning the war, to restrict these essential "lungs" of the population of the Midlands. We continually pointed out that there were remote areas where military training could be carried out, and which it would be fairer to use than usurping this part of the Midlands.

We recognise that roads have to be built and that quarrying has to be carried out, but we ask the Minister to remember when we ask him to support new industries in this area—particularly in the Wednesfield area, which I have been told is one of low employment into which new industries could be brought— that to the crowded industrial areas round Birmingham, like Wolverhampton, Wal-sall, Lichfield, and others, this area of the Chase is a precious heritage.

We know that a busy Ministry with claims on it from every part of the country might not be fully aware of how important this is. We ask the Minister to find out if this is a life and death necessity; to find out if existing quarries could not be used or developed; and to satisfy us that the Ministry, like ourselves, and like the population of these areas, understands that industry is becoming noisier in these parts. The men down the mines cutting coal are coming under increasing pressure, and have to put up with increasing noise. The more we have this background of industry the more essential it is that the beauty and peace of the Chase should be preserved and left undisturbed from the squalor inseparable from the development of the quarrying industry.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

I doubt whether this case could have been put with more moderation and ingenuity and eloquence than by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) and the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). Cannock Chase needs no recommendation. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and has been designated as such by my right hon. Friend. The case for the protection of that area has been admirably put.

If there is one criticism to make of the case as it has been put it would be that it has necessarily been somewhat one-sided. That is bound to be so in view of the nature of the plea that has been made. My job is to put the position in perspective, and to put the other side of the argument into the scales. I am sure that the hon. Members value extremely highly the full employment in their areas. Industrial necessity requires ample supplies of sand and gravel. I am not able to assure the hon. Lady that sand and gravel is a matter of life and death necessity; that would be an exaggeration. But it is a matter of employment necessity, and I know that she recognises that.

It follows that we have to dig sand and gravel where it is found. The hon. Lady was very persuasive during the war in her efforts to get military training moved from this natural "lung" but military training is more mobile than sand and gravel. This area is rich in sand and gravel and its working cannot just be moved to other areas which are equally rich without the community as a whole paying a disproportionate price. One of the major elements in the case of sand and gravel is the transport cost, and there is an optimum radius—between 15 and 20 miles—above which the cost of obtaining sand and gravel and, therefore, the cost of work in which it is employed, rises rapidly. This is a community cost, which has to be measured against the amenity cost.

The hon. Lady referred to a busy Ministry perhaps not having time to consider the merits of each side of the case. In fact, the Ministry has been extremely well served by the Advisory Committee on Sand and Gravel, to which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth referred, which issued a number of voluminous and thorough Reports. The terms of reference of this Committee included the need to study the protection of amenities in all its recommendations, and I hope to give some evidence that it has done so. This Committee published books on every part of the United Kingdom, and the book it published in 1950 contained Parts III and IV, which covered the Trent Valley and the West Midlands. That indicates the degree of detail into which the Committee went.

It considered the whole country in terms of service areas, one of which is named the Cannock Chase Service Area. On pages 68 and 69 of its Report the Committee sought to assess the need for sand and gravel. I hope that hon. Members will realise that I am leading up to meeting their case in full, but I must introduce the whole picture. The Committee sought to measure the demand for sand and gravel in the Cannock Chase area over the next 50 years, because its remit required it so to do, and it decided that there would be a demand for 18 million cubic yards in that area. In fact, the demand that has occurred since 1950 shows that its estimate was on the modest side. Demand is running higher than it estimated. There is no comfort there.

It went into the question of where this sand and gravel could be found within the Cannock Chase Service Area and it said that, broadly, there was a choice. On the one hand there were the deposits on Cannock Chase itself. These deposits are thick and deep and they lie on land which has great amenity value and natural beauty but no agricultural value. As I will explain more fully in a moment, these deposits on Cannock Chase are dry deposits which can be dug in a dry manner.

The alternative is to go to the sand and gravel bed on the Trent and Tame confluence, also within the Cannock Chase Service Area, and to dig the sand and gravel there. That would involve attacking thin seams of sand and gravel, it would involve wet working and it would involve attacking land of great agricultural value.

That is the balance which had to be considered. It was a clear choice, and there were merits and demerits in both of the alternative areas. I want to stress the importance of the dry characteristics of the workings on the Cannock Chase area. Hon. Members will appreciate that if workings to obtain sand and gravel are wet, the result is to leave a large number of what are described as lagoons dotted all over the working area.

Mr. Snow

One already exists.

Sir K. Joseph

I will come to that point in a moment.

If lagoons are left, it is pure luck whether sufficient spoil, ash or other material can be found to fill them. It is doubtful whether the aqueous area which would be involved in lagoons were the Trent and Tame confluence choice to be made could conceivably be filled. Secondly, the choice of a wet-working area leaves the land permanently damaged, whereas if the works are dry, with modern methods of restoration there is every reason to expect that the results will not be observable after the period of working has ended.

I would also point out the difference in the depth of seam between the two alternatives. In the Cannock Chase area of deposit the seam is extremely deep. Consequently, a great deal of sand and gravel could be dug for every square yard of surface that has to be worked. On the Trent and Tame confluence the seam is very thin. The result is that if the Cannock Chase area were used the area concerned need be only one-third of the size of that which would have to be worked if the Trent and Tame confluence, with its thin seams, were chosen.

We thus have a choice between two areas. In the Cannock Chase area the working will be dry and therefore temporary. The land can be restored and there is no loss of agricultural land. There is, however, grave temporary damage to natural beauty. Only 280 acres would be needed in order to produce 18 million cubic yards. On the other hand, in the Trent and Tame confluence area there would be wet working, permanent loss of land in lagoons, permanent loss of agricultural land of high value but no loss of beauty. In the Trent and Tame confluence area there would be a loss by working not of 280 acres temporarily but of 900 acres permanently. That is the balance which has to be measured, and the Advisory Committee had no doubt what it should recommend. On page 69 we read: Notwithstanding the damage to amenity interests which further workings in Cannock Chase must inevitably cause, and despite the known intensity of public feeling in regard to further intrusions upon this area, we are in no doubt that the principles of good planning point firmly towards the further temporary damage to the amenities inseparable from workings on the deep, dry deposits on Cannock Chase, rather than to the irreparable loss to the nation's agricultural estate which would be caused by the creation of lagoons over several hundred acres of the high quality farm land overlying the terrace gravels to the west of the Tame-Trent confluence. It was that strong recommendation which was accepted, albeit reluctantly, by the Staffordshire County Council. As a result, in its development plan it zoned a large area, considerably larger than the 20 acres which we are discussing tonight, for sand and gravel working, and it has applied to these 20 acres, which we are discussing, reinstatement conditions.

I can now assure the House that much more is known about reinstatement than was known even a few years ago. There is no doubt that in these 28 acres of heathland the result after working will not be noticeably different from what it is now. The damage to amenity is temporary during the working.

The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth intervened while I was talking and said that there was wet working in the immediate area. I quite understand that he has formed that impression, but the fact is the the Rugely gravel pit, which is working already in the area, has a pond at its bottom for the sand and gravel to be washed. It is an artificial pond created by the firm which is working the area. It is not a sign that the gravel working itself is wet.

Mr. Snow

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving away. He may call it a pond. All I can say is that it seems to be a very large area which looks like a battlefield. I have in my hands an opinion, which is relatively objective, that existing properties which are being worked on the Chase are sufficient to meet all foreseeable requirements. If I hand this document to the hon. Gentleman, will he have it examined?

Sir K. Joseph

I will certainly have it examined, but I must assure the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, both from the Advisory Committee's Report and from the report of the Ministry's own representatives, that these are dry workings. They are regarded as such by the Staffordshire County Council. The pond is artificial, although there may be a very sticky bottom, because of the washing of sand. This does not affect the fact that restoration will be complete; the contours will be altered only slightly.

It is true, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said, that my right hon. Friend has dismissed an appeal for permission to work gravel near this area. That was an appeal to carry out gravel workings in a hillside outside the zone I have referred to. That would have gravely harmed the landscape— much more gravely than this property.

It is not true, however, that twenty new applications are now pending for gravel working in this designated area. My information is that six inquiries have been received, all since the publicity given by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth to this particular area and to the possibility of more demand for gravel because of the motorway. They are six inquiries, not formal applications. There are six. not twenty.

The working which we are discussing lies on the perimeter of a saucer-shaped plateau which is almost entirely surrounded by woodlands. As a result, this gravel site is visible only from the perimeter of the saucer and is more or less completely invisible from areas beyond, because it is not overlooked by any higher land and because of the enclosing woodlands. There is limited access to this area already because, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth will know, there is a rifle range immediately adjacent.

It is, so far as I know, not the wish of either of the local authorities concerned to revoke the planning permission that they have given. If either did wish to revoke, compensation would be payable at market value. Market value takes into account the current demand for the resources of the area. Therefore, it is possible that, if market value were paid, the potential demand arising from the motorway would have to be taken into account.

I hope that I have been able to show hon. Members, despite the undoubted need of this area of great national beauty, that the effect of the working will be temporary. Because of the location, it will scarcely intrude itself upon people using the area, because it is screened by woodlands and not overlooked by higher land. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that we were right to choose this temporary, smaller area—which is a dry-working area, causing no damage to agricultural land—rather than a larger area which is wet-working, therefore causing permanent damage, and of high agricultural value.

In the circumstances, there was no choice for the local authorities but to accept the advice given by the Advisory Committee which has studied this problem so closely. I deeply regret that the conflicting demands of industry and amenity—on which depend, on the one hand, the employment and, on the other hand, the pleasure of the population— has led to this dilemma, but I cannot see that as a result of balancing these various interests it will be proper for my right hon. Friend to intervene in any way.

Mr. Snow

The Parliamentary Secretary will hear about this again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.