FACTORY, WEMBLEY (NOISE) (Hansard, 24 July 1962)

§ Wing Commander Eric Bullus (Wembley, North)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to some of my constituents, in which there is also a general underlying principle. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall try to be brief, but this is an important matter. My constituents have a good case which I shall try to reveal adequately, and I am hopeful that the Minister will grant our reasonable request, which does not call for legislation.

I should like, at the outset, to congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on their new appointments. I wish them success in their many tasks, which concern and touch the daily lives of our people. I was interested that one of the first pronouncements of my right hon. Friend was a rebuke to the London County Council for its apparent intention not to co-operate with him in London's local government reform. I only hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to evade a similar charge that I shall undoubtedly make against them unless they show some concern for my constituents, and co-operation with my local authority.

It is necessary, first, to give a brief background for the record before coming to my special plea. In December, 1942, the Wembley Borough Council granted planning permission for the erection by the Ministry of Supply on behalf of the British Oxygen Co. Ltd., of a factory building on land fronting Carlton Avenue East, in my constituency. That land had been zoned by the council in 1936 for general industrial purposes. I have no doubt that the consent was given because of the urgent wartime need for the production of liquid oxygen. It should be remember that the council did everything to help in the exigencies of war, and I feel that it should not be later penalised for what it then did.

In order at that time to minimise the effect of the building on the adjacent 1439 houses in Carlton Avenue East, a condition was imposed by the council that the land in front of the building should be covered with a screen of trees and shrubs, to be laid to the satisfaction of the council. However, following the erection of the company's building, complaints were received at once, early in 1943, from residents in the vicinity about the noise and vibration caused by the compressors, but because of the war conditions then prevailing, it seemed that little could be done to rectify the position in any way.

After the war—in August, 1950—the company submitted an application for permission to improve and extend the existing building which had been erected following the planning consent given in December, 1942. It is important to state that the council at that time gave long and careful consideration to the application before it decided to refuse it. It refused for two main reasons: first, that it was intended that the extension should contain additional compressing plant and, secondly, that no satisfactory assurance could be given by the applicants that the operation of the plant which it was proposed to install in the extension would not increase the vibration caused by the existing plant which was already proving detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining residential neighbourhood.

The British Oxygen Company appealed to the then Minister of Town and Country Planning against the council's decision. A public inquiry was held in the Wembley Town Hall in December, 1950, at which both the borough council and the residents were represented by counsel. The company's proposals were vigorously opposed but the Minister allowed the appeal and here we come to the crux of the matter. The Government of the day accepted the responsibility for the extension in the face of opposition by the local council. Therefore, the Government of the day must accept the consequences of that decision.

From that date there have been difficulties for the nearby residents and frustration for the borough council, the advice and experience of which had been arbitrarily rejected by the Government. Following the 1950 appeal, which 1440 was granted, British Oxygen proceeded to erect a building and install plant. As the council had anticipated, violent complaints came quickly from residents at the increased noise and vibration caused by these further operations of the company. Considerable discussions were held at the offices of the Ministry in an endeavour to find a satisfactory solution to the problem caused by the Minister allowing the appeal.

In June, 1953, the borough health committee decided to remind the Minister of Housing and Local Government that the siting of the offending plant was allowed by him on appeal and that he should be pressed urgently to take steps to bring the trouble to an end. The reply the council received was most unsatisfactory, but consideration of any further action was deferred because I myself, as the hon. Member for Parliament for Wembley, North, raised the whole subject in the House in an Adjournment debate on 10th November, 1953.

The than Parliamentary Secretary, the present Minister of Transport, gave an equally unsatisfactory reply and concluded by saying that the initiative lay with the borough council—this after the Government in 1950 had rejected the council's well-considered decision to refuse permission for any extension. Despite this further rebuff, the council persisted with discussions with the company which were held from time to time.

Meanwhile, the complaints continued to come in from residents and the council health committee considered possible courses of action in January, 1955. There were three main courses. First, it was considered that purchase of the affected residential property in the area would be too costly and would not solve the problem. That, therefore, was discounted. Secondly, there was the question of compensation for the company under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That was deemed impracticable. Thirdly, there was the possibility of legal proceedings against the company and the obtaining of an injunction. That, also, would have involved the council in considerable expense with no guarantee of success.

So the council decided at that time that it was unable to take any further action in the matter and that the further 1441 complaints of residents would have to be forwarded direct to the Ministry. That was the position at the beginning of this year. But since that time there have been two explosions at the Wembley works. The more recent one was on 20th May last, and this once again brought matters to a head. In view of the natural anxiety of the residents, the council sought to arrange an early meeting of representatives of the Ministry, of the council, of the company and of the local residents association. The Ministry reply to the request was that the Minister notes the renewed concern and understood that the matter which is outside the Minister's province is being investigated by the Factory Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour. This reply is totally unacceptable.

I have also received to my representation a not dissimilar reply except that this note was added: The Council decided not to take any action under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 because an order under Section 26 of that Act requiring the company to discontinue the use of any of their buildings or works would involve a liability to pay compensation which might be heavy. It is true "— writes the Minister— that I have power to direct the council to take this action, but I am as unwilling to do so as was my predecessor, since it is usual to leave such action to the discretion of the local authority, who of course would have to pay the compensation. To that I say "Thank you very much." Of course, the council would have to pay the compensation, but it had no say in the planning permission which was given by the Ministry in the face of the vigorous opposition of the council. While it is recognised that the decision of the council to zone the land for industrial purposes established the value, the decision of the Minister on the appeal in 1950 had the effect of increasing the amount of compensation which the company could claim should the council decide to make an order under the relevant Section of the 1947 Act.

This increase would amount to the value of the buildings and the costs incurred by the company in installing plant and possibly the losses which it might incur should it remove the plant. It is not known what these costs would be. One estimate has been that it would be in the region of £¼ million, and, as the 1442 product of a penny rate in Wembley is £12,700, one can see that this would mean a considerable increase in the rates.

The Ministry suggests that the council should pay compensation when the Ministry's own action against the council's advice was to increase substantially the amount the council would have to pay if the necessary order were made. Also such order would have to be confirmed by the Minister who would thereby admit the mistake of the Ministry in 1950. Should the borough council have to pay for the Ministry's mistake?

That is a very brief history of the case. It is, I maintain, unanswerable. But my main concern is the genuine apprehension of my constituents, and my sympathies are entirely with them. The company, I recognise, is a good one and has been helpful when it could, at some considerable expense. Nevertheless, in addition to the noise and vibration, there is the added worry of explosions, the most recent of which meant loss of life. Some of my constituents are most apprehensive. It has been told to me that some of them are actually frightened to go to bed at night.

The residents themselves have compiled a list, which I understand is by no means complete, of damage to residential property and other effects. There were 26 houses damaged by the most recent explosion, with broken windows and tiles on roofs, and 66 persons suffered slight to severe shock; 8 persons had to have medical treatment for nervous disorder and 90 per cent. of the local residents expressed fear that an explosion could happen again. All of those interviewed wanted the removal of the plant.

No one doubts that the company is a good one and that it has tried to be very helpful in settling claims made for damage, but there is no doubt either that the best and the only thing to be done at present is to get the interested parties round the table.

The company would, I believe, send representatives; the borough council and the South Kenton and Preston Park Residents' Association are pressing for such a meeting and the Government must agree to attend such a meeting. They have so far resisted the invitation, 1443 but I urge—nay, I must demand—that the Minister co-operates with the local authority and actively demonstrates his appreciation of the concern and anxiety of my constituents who have an undeniable claim to be heard.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) for his very kind words of welcome. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of his very wide responsibilities in this Ministry, but although I have read the former speech of my hon. and gallant Friend in the debate in 1953, to which he referred, and realise how anxious, and rightly anxious, he is for the welfare of his constituents, I am bound to say that I feel he is placing my right hon. Friend's sense of responsibility a little high to ask for the buying out— for that is what it amounts to—of this company at a cost which he himself puts at £¼ million after some years of establishment in Wembley.

I think that it is fair to point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that 1936 was not a year in which there was any pressure from the national point of view to establish this factory in Wembley. As my information goes, the borough council decided to change the allocation of this land to industrial purposes in that year, but the buildings were not erected until 1942, when they were erected by the then Ministry of Supply. I think, therefore, it must be faced—and I do not want to argue with my hon. and gallant Friend at this time of night as to the degree of responsibility—that the borough council had some degree, and a substantial one, of responsibility in the original mistake, if mistake it was—and it may well have been.

When the former Minister, the then Minister of Town and Country Planning, the late Lord Dalton, came to consider the proposed extension on appeal in, I think, 1950, one must face the fact that the position was that this industrial allocation of the land was settled, that the factory was there and 1444 that a compressor of sorts, though of a different type, was, in fact, at work. At the inquiry—I fully agree with my hon. and gallant Friend—there was, as there so often is on these occasions, a conflict of technical evidence. As I understand it, the proposal was to install what was then a new type of compressor. I have no doubt that the optimism of the technical witnesses called on behalf of the company was perfectly genuine, but, nevertheless, with the advantage of hindsight I think we all agree now that it was optimism.

However that may be, the Minister decided the appeal in favour of the company, and although that decision might be different if taken today I have no reason to believe with the information which was then available that any other decision would or could have been arrived at. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have been in my Department only a week, but I am already aware of how difficult some of these cases are. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates—the planning procedures seem immensely complicated— that if we had means by which the decision of the Minister, which is laid down in the Act as final, could be reviewed there would be endless uncertainty and endless further delay.

As regards remedies available to the Wembley Borough Council, we have to face the fact that this whole planning control procedure, although it goes back to the beginning of the century, is really relatively modern, and it was never the intention that planning control should replace the ordinary common law liabilities or remedies. I think that the very fact that my hon. and gallant Friend makes the point that the difficulties facing the council in deciding whether to take legal action are increased because it has no guarantee of success—which, I think, is almost inevitable in any form of litigation—is in a sense an admission that this case is not quite as clear cut as my hon. and gallant Friend would have us believe. I do not say that in any disparaging manner because, as I said earlier, I know that he is nightly most anxious for the safety and welfare of constituents. But I ask him to realise 'that we, too, who in the Department are responsible for public funds, have our responsibility in the matter as well.

1445 If the council decides that the procedure under Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act is out so far as it is concerned, and if my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, as I am sure he does, that buying out this factory, Which is what it would amount to, at this vast sum is not something Which my right hon. Friend could contemplate after twenty years, the only real remedy, as I see it, is co-operation between the borough council and the company. I have no reason to think that this has not been good in the past. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that, by bringing a deputation of representa- 1446 tives of the council and of the company to the Ministry, I can help in trying to work out some means by which this nuisance can be abated, I should be only too willing to assist if I can. But I must warn him that, as I see the matter at present, I do not Chink that this is a case in which it would be right for my right hon. Friend the Minister to intervene and in effect provide the funds to support a Section 26 Order.