ATCHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (OFFICE EXTENSION) (Hansard, 22 May 1963)

§ Sir John Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

I regret having to detain the House and my hon. Friend at this time of night, and I am sad that, after many years in the House, I find it necessary to utter criticisms against one of the two local authorities which comprise the area of my constituency, many of the members of which are personal friends of mine. For many months now, I have tried to hold myself in a position between the two parties, and I have tried to effect, as far as it lay within my power, some form of reconciliation. I should have been prepared, had there been any sign or hope of reconciliation, to withhold the action I am taking tonight.

The first fact to be understood in this dispute between the Atcham Rural District Council and my constituent is that the offices of the Atcham Rural District Council lie within the area of the planning authority, the Shrewsbury Borough Council. The premises, 23, St. John's Hill, were bought by my constituent, a Dr. Macaulay, from the rural district council in 1952. In May, 1960, the Shrewsbury Borough Council, as planning authority, approved plans by the Atcham Rural District Council, whose offices were next door to No. 23 St. John's Hill, for extensions to its offices which resulted in a building going up alongside Dr. Macaulay's garden, with large windows overlooking his garden.

This proposal was approved in May, 1960, by Shrewsbury Borough Council, which is the local planning authority. Dr. Macaulay—and I have no reason to doubt him, because there is no evidence to the contrary—was never informed as to what sort of request the rural district council had made, or what it proposed to do. There is no written evidence that any information was ever given to him. I believe that it has been stated by the council that reference was made to the council's proposals, not to Dr. Macaulay, but to his wife and this was during a conversation in the garage at the end of 599 the doctor's garden. There was no written notification of what the council intended to do but, even if this conversation did take place, to make a statement not to the doctor but to his wife in their garage, seems to me a most strange way of conducting business.

Dr. Macaulay first saw the indications that windows would overlook his garden when he was shown a plan in July, 1960. That was on the occasion of a visit which he had paid to the rural district council offices on a different matter. He was then told that the rural district council, when it transferred the ownership of 23, St. John's Hill, next door, had reserved the right to light and air. This was said to be in the conveyance the council made to Dr. Macaulay. This statement was repeated to an officer of the council a week later and it appeared to the doctor that this officer went out of the office for some minutes and then came back to say that the council had reserved the right to light and air in the conveyance.

This, as I have said, was in July, 1960. In August, 1960, the doctor wrote to the Town Clerk of Shrewsbury indicating his objections to the proposal. In October, 1960, one month after work had actually started on the building, it was established that no right to light and air did, in point of fact, exist. The area with which I am concerned is shown on the town map as primarily a residential area and, at the inquiry later, there were many residents in and around this area who gave evidence on behalf of Dr. Macaulay. One cannot but help wonder if permission for this type of development would have been given to anyone other than a local authority. Would any business organisation have been given permission for similar development; would it be given now, or in the future? I most certainly hope not, because this is not only a beautiful area, but a beautiful residential area.

Unlike the rural district council, Dr. Macaulay warned his neighbours—that is, the council—that if they went on with their building, he would take steps to obscure their windows. After an appeal to the borough council, then to the Minister, and after a public inquiry, Dr. Macaulay won his rights in this matter. That was in December, 1961. He won the right to do it in only one way, and that was by building a wall alongside the 600 new office extension, which the Atcham Rural District Council had built in such a way that apart from its appearance and apart from obliterating the windows, it would do little more than collect twigs and earwigs.

I suggest again that the doctor having won his point—the windows were infringing his privacy—the correct, simple and most straightforward way is to block up those windows. The rural district council, however, takes the view that the doctor having won his point to build his wall, which was the only course open to him, this is what it will insist he shall do.

What did the rural district council say about the building of the wall when the doctor took the matter to appeal? I have a copy of the report of the inspector. Under the heading "The case for the Council"—and I presume that this was on the basis of evidence which the council laid before the inspector—n states: The erection of large blank, slab wall, built against the windows of a new well-formed office extension, would not harmonise with the present building, and would spoil appearances.…;The effect of the proposed wall against the new office extension would be harmful to the appearance of the locality. The top of the wall would be seen from St. Chad's Terrace"— which is a neighbouring street— and would be detrimental to visual amenity. It would also affect the visual amenities of the gardens of neighbouring houses. That is the action which the rural district council now requires Dr. Macaulay to take.

From this position the council has not budged, except to say that it is prepared to put in glazed bricks. This is quite inadequate. Anybody must know that through glazed bricks, people on either side close by are clearly visible, and privacy is bound to be affected. In addition, voices are audible in both directions through such windows. Thirdly, and not least important. if one is trying to make this ugly building less ugly, it ought to be possible to grow creepers and ramblers on it. but this would not be possible with the three large windows along the wall.

The rural district council has not behaved in this matter as I should hope it would as good neighbours. One has only to consider what I call the story of the dustbins. By arrangement with the 601 district council, it had been the custom for Dr. Macaulay to take his dustbins through the council's yard. The only way in which he could get his dustbins out of his premises was either through his house or through a yard which belonged to the district council offices. Two weeks after Dr. Macaulay's letter of protest to the borough council saying that he would object, the permission to take dustbins through the back yard was withdrawn by the rural district council.

One cannot help wondering why an authority with, presumably, adequate sanitary advice should consider it correct behaviour to compel a doctor of medicine to carry dustbins through his house, past his surgery and waiting room and out through his front door.

That leads me to the most extraordinary action of all. In January, 1961, the rural district council said that it would allow Dr. Macaulay to continue to take his dustbins through the council's yard if he would apologise to the council for all the trouble he had caused it and would pay the council's legal expenses. This is not the action of a good neighbour. Here is a local authority compelling a constituent of mine to do something which the local authority itself, when it had the opportunity, said was unsightly and undesirable.

I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend feels that the council behaved entirely properly in this matter and I express the hope that he will try to do what I have failed to do—to bring these parties together in the hope that ultimately reason will prevail and that benefit, in a small way, to the Borough of Shrewsbury will result.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has raised one of those difficult problems which involve, basically, differences between neighbours, and this case is complicated and aggravated by the fact that one of the neighbours in question is a local authority, although not, be it said, a local planning authority.

It is never easy to be quite sure in these cases that one has all the facts, and this case is no exception, but certainly the physical features which my hon. 602 Friend described are not in dispute. There is no doubt that his constituent, who owns No. 23, St. John's Hill, has been faced with considerable intrusion upon his privacy. As my hon. Friend said, the Atcham Rural District Council's offices adjoin No. 23, and Dr. Macaulay's garden, a narrow strip about 70 feet long, is bounded for about half its length by the wall of the council chamber, which is a fairly old building, being the old Friends' Meeting House in Shrewsbury. That is the further end of the garden. The R.D.C., wishing to increase its office accommodation, has rebuilt an intervening building so that the whole of Dr. Macaulay's boundary is formed by this continuous building.

The trouble has arisen from three windows which have been inserted in the intervening building and which undoubtedly introduce an intrusion into his privacy of a greater degree than that which existed from the three fairly ancient windows in the old Meeting House. This is aggravated by the fact that, as I observe from the photographs, immediately opposite these windows, Dr. Macaulay's house has large Georgian bay windows on the ground, first and second floors, which are, of course, the windows of principal rooms.

I re-echo the regrets which my hon. Friend expressed about this matter. As he knows, I am a Salopian. I still own a little property in the Atcham rural district, more by sentiment than anything else, and my family connections go back a long way further than does the Atcham Rural District Council. I very much regret being put in this position tonight, because I have always had friendly relations with the council.

But, on the face of it, it does seem that Dr. Macaulay would be justified in regarding this building as un-neighbourly, whether the neighbour was a local authority or a private person. On the face of it, too, he may well appear to be justified in believing that he has a right to expect something rather better from a public authority. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is no doubt that this was the view which was, by implication, expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), who, as predecessor to the present Minister, granted permission for a wall to be built to minimise the damage 603 caused. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has somewhat put me in the position of judging between these two contestants. And so, of course, I must look equally at both sides, and it is only fair to say that there is another side to this question.

Naturally, I have had inquiries made, and indeed after my right hon. Friend brought Dr. Macaulay to see me I had certain approaches made, with regard to the question whether or not Dr. Macaulay knew of the intentions of the Atcham Rural District when he purchased the property. I find that there is clearly an element of genuine doubt. Unfortunately, the Clerk to the Atcham Rural District Council at the time has since died and there seems to be very little written evidence and remarkably little recollection. But, nevertheless, there was a contract of sale which clearly reserved to the rural district the right of light for any building which it might erect along the boundary.

I would re-emphasise that the doctor did buy his property from the rural district council, which sold it to him largely because the Shrewsbury Borough Council was unwilling to give planning permission to make No. 23, St. John's Hill into the additional office accommodation which the district council required. It had the intention of making up the accommodation it required in the premises next door or in the garden adjoining. It is fair to say, I think, that since this matter arose, the council has gone some way to attempting to ameliorate the nuisance. I am assured that all these offending windows are glazed with obscure glass and that instructions have been given that the windows on this side of the building shall not be opened.

In dealing with the merits of the matter, I think one has to be quite fair and say that there is a doubt as to what happened during the transactions leading up to the sale. It may well be that the council intended to make its position clear and failed to do so. What is quite certain is that there was a good deal of misunderstanding, and I am afraid it is equally certain that the office extension is up. The only question is whether anything can be done to resolve the present dispute. My hon. Friend 604 knows that there are powers under the planning Act by which my right hon. Friend can intervene in a pretty drastic manner, involving the removal of an offending building, but I do not think that my hon. Friend would suggest that this is an appropriate case for those powers, to be used. They are, as he knows, used only in matters of national rather than local interest or in matters where the planning authority or the local authority has clearly exceeded its powers in one way or another. This is clearly a local matter and there is no suggestion that the strict powers were exceeded in any way at all. Therefore, I do not think that anybody would suggest that these powers are appropriate in this case.

I have, as my hon. Friend knows, been in touch with the Atcham Rural District Council and the Shrewsbury Borough Council, and, as I say, they have given this assurance with regard to the opening of the windows and the glazing of them with obscure glass. They have also indicated that they would not be unwilling to consider a suitable clause to ensure that this continues should they give up these premises and move to new premises, which, I understand, they have purchased or are about to purchase in other parts of the town.

However, I do not hold out any hope to my hon. Friend that my efforts at mediation at this stage will be any more successful than his. In fact, I think there is a stage, as far as my Ministry is concerned, at which one must realise that one can persuade up to a point, and thereafter one has to decide whether local authorities are authorities or whether one is going to try to make them agents. Clearly, they are authorities with a great deal of autonomy, and I think the time has come to recognise that this is a matter within the discretion of the authorities concerned and that it is up to them to decide what to do, if anything.

I hope very much that this rather sad little affair, very annoying no doubt to Dr. Macaulay, but I think clouded with a good deal of genuine misunderstanding, not entirely as deliberate as perhaps at first appears, will be cleared up and that the parties will get together, if necessary through the good offices of some local personality commanding respect, of which I know there are plenty in my native 605 County of Salop—perhaps the Clerk to the County Council, or even the Clerk to the Borough Council.

I am sure that there are many people who would be only too willing to attempt to bring the parties together and reach a rather more sensible solution than the building of a wall slap up against windows when the same result could be achieved more cheaply, in a more sightly 606 manner, and in a manner much more likely to lead back to the amicable relations which we certainly hope to see preserved here, and particularly preserved with a local authority which, from my point of view, has always had a very high reputation.