CHRISTCHURCH AIRFIELD (SALE) (Hansard, 2 November 1965)

§ Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

I count myself fortunate in having won the Ballot. I wish to turn from the subject which we have been debating and to raise the question of the disposal of Christchurch airfield.

I should like to say a few words about the background of this area. Many people know it as one of the most delightful seaside resorts in the country, boasting a most beautiful Augustinian priory church, a real gem for tourists to visit, and an old Norman castle ruin. I do not think many people know that Christchurch produces at the estuary of the Avon and Stour some of the biggest and finest salmon in the country.

The matter which I wish to raise is of some importance. I am particularly glad to see the Minister here, which is, I think, an indication of his acknowledgement of the fact that this matter is of some urgency. I trust that after he has heard my arguments he will be able to give a favourable reply.

The problem of the disposal of Christchurch airfield is of very considerable importance to the people living in and around Christchurch. It involves matters of principle regarding the disposal of Government surplus land which could affect many other parts of the country in the months and years ahead. The airfield belongs to the Ministry of Aviation. It became available for development with the closure a year or two ago of the de Havilland works. The Ministry sold six acres at market value to the Christchurch Council for housing development on which the council built 65 houses. This housing development enabled the Ministry to dispose of the major part of the old de Havilland factory to Messrs. Shand Kydd Ltd.

The Ministry has agreed to sell to the council at market value sufficient further land for about 40 more houses for general housing needs. The price has been negotiated with the district valuer. 986 Planning permission has still to be obtained, but it is hoped and anticipated that it will be available very shortly. An outline land allocation map for the whole airfield has been settled between the Hampshire County Council with the approval of the Christchurch Borough Council and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Briefly, the main provisions of this plan are that, subject to the satisfactory provision of a ring road, which will more or less follow the airfield boundaries, there will be a broad strip of land running from west to east which will be reserved for schools. This will settle that part of the area. To the south and east of this strip is a partially wooded area of about 20 acres which will be reserved as open space. This will leave areas for development to the north and south of these allocations. The area to the south will be wholly residential except for the inclusion of a primary school. The area to the north will be partly residential and partly industrial.

It is with this industrial allocation that the Christchurch Council is principally concerned. The area is about 14 acres. On its eastern boundary is the part of the former de Havilland factory now owned by Revvo Castors Limited. On its western boundary is land which, presumably, will be offered to the Christchurch Council for council house building. It is adjacent to the six acres already developed to the tune of 65 houses. It is this 14 acres of industrial allocation that the Christchurch Council wishes to control.

That is the background, but I believe that the present position is both difficult and confusing to the council through no fault of its own. The first difficulty lies in the delay in formal approval by the Ministry of Housing and. Local Government of the 14 acres to be allocated to industrial purposes. I understand that such approval will not be given until the whole of the town map for Christchurch is approved. The town map was submitted to the Minister four years ago and although there were, no doubt, valid reasons for the delay, those reasons have now surely been overcome. The failure of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to give a decision is frustrating the Ministry of Aviation, the local 987 councils, the general public and industrialists. Clearly, it is of paramount importance that all the interested parties should know their position without delay.

Assuming that formal approval is given for industrial development, the next problem is concerned with the whole question of Government policy concerning the disposal of surplus land. Previously, the policy has been to sell the land by auction to the highest bidder. Only if the local authority could make a case that its purchase of the land was essential to satisfy a public need, on the basis that if the land had been privately owned compulsory purchase powers would have been available, would the land be offered to the local authority at a market value price settled by the district valuer. The Christchurch Council could hardly have established a case for compulsory purchase of the 14 acres in question, but it is of the firm opinion that it could use this land in the course of its industrial development by exercising control in the interests of the local people rather than that the land should be dealt with speculatively.

The Board of Trade, through the issue of industrial development certificates, will, of course, exercise control in respect of any development exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. in area. The principles governing the granting of the certificates are well known. Essentially, development is usually allowed only for industries which have special local connections, for industries of a service nature that are needed for the resident population and for industries which will not employ large numbers of people. Obviously, the Christchurch Corporation as landowners would be governed and guided by the Board of Trade principles, but on the positive side. The corporation would exercise control in favour of those industries that are needed locally and which are in the interests of the local people.

At present, fortunately, there is no serious local unemployment problem, but I am sure that greater diversification of industry in the area is extremely desirable. For a long time, the prosperity and employment prospects in Christchurch were tied to the success or failure of the de Havilland industry in the town. When that industry closed down, a crisis was 988 averted by energetic efforts by all concerned, particularly with regard to the expansion of the aircraft industry at Hum. If at some time in the future these activities at Hum ceased or were even reduced, we could be faced again with a serious situation and the outcome might not be such a happy one.

I think the case for the council to control this industrial area is an extremely sound one, but the problem then arises as to the best way in everyone's interests to go about it. The corporation is realistic, and appreciates that the use and development of this land must accord with national employment policies, and this means, certainly in the near future, that there will be a restricted industrial market for it. These restrictions are in the national interest, and thus it seems to me unfair that the local authority should carry the burden of the loan charges on the full price while for important national reasons it cannot be disposed of. A reasonable solution then—and I accept that there is an important principle here—would be for the Ministry of Aviation to grant to Christchurch Corporation an option on the land. I understand that, if granted such an option, the corporation would seek to buy such portions of the land, at market value, for which industrial tenants could be found from time to time. The corporation would then be able to let sites to industrialists on terms and conditions which would encourage the sort of development which would be of most benefit to the local community.

What is now causing considerable concern to the corporation and to my constituents is the delay in the decision as to whether such an option could or could not be granted. Obviously many details would have to be worked out, but if a decision in principle could soon be reached then at least it would clear the air and the corporation would at least know where it stands. I understand that the Ministry of Aviation is negotiating with the G.P.O. for about three of the 14 acres to be used as a G.P.O. depot. This development is quite acceptable to the corporation, but again, I am bound to say that the negotiations have been protracted, and it is time that the Government were able to give an answer as to whether this development may proceed.

I naturally hope that a favourable response will be forthcoming from the 989 Minister tonight over the granting of an option to purchase on the lines I have outlined. However, if such an option could not be granted then I ask the Minister to say so and at least end the delay and uncertainty.

If the Ministry then feels that the land should be sold in the near future the corporation could take the matter up, if it so wished, with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see if loan sanction for the purchase would be forthcoming or whether the terms of the Minister's circular, 62/65, might preclude this. This alternative step would be very much a second best, but it would at least be an improvement on the present situation.

Quite frankly, this matter has been allowed to drag on for far too long. All we ask is for the various Ministries and the local authority to get together and with good will and understanding, which I am sure exists on all sides, reach some sensible, farsighted decisions to solve what is, after all, a common problem. Such joint enterprise was extremely successful before when the Ministry of Aviation disposed of the de Havilland buildings, which was helped in very large measure by the co-operation of the local authority in the housing field. All I wish to ask is that this good work may continue—without delay.

§ The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for giving me this opportunity to clear up one or two points about the disposal of the airfield which bears the name of part of his constituency, and I would congratulate him on his perspicacity in choosing this evening for his Adjournment debate, a great convenience, I am sure, both to him and to myself.

The aircraft factory and airfield at Christchurch became surplus to the needs of my Ministry when the de Havilland Aircraft Company's lease terminated three years ago, in the autumn of 1962. It was decided that the factory and the airfield should be disposed of separately, and the factory, as the hon. Member knows, was disposed of some time ago. However, before we could sell the airfield it was necessary to determine its future use and the Hampshire County Development Plan had therefore to be 990 reconsidered. No action was possible until the end of 1963 because of the general hold-up of town maps in this area affected by the Hampshire Coast Green Belt which arose from the prospect of major expansion and development in South Hampshire.

The reconsideration of the position extended throughout 1964, and it was not until February 1965 that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was able to advise the Hampshire County Council that the amendments to the Christchurch town map which it had proposed were accepted—subject to provisions for appeal by possible objectors. In the middle of the summer, that is the summer of 1965, it became clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be able to confirm the amendments which he had provisionally agreed earlier in the year. This did not become clear until last summer.

As the hon. Gentleman outlined, I think with complete accuracy, the airfield is to be developed in accordance with a comprehensive plan and the land comprising it is to be released for development in an orderly way as road services and other facilities are made available. I do not think I need go over the ground of the detailed disposal of the airfield which the hon. Gentleman put before us. There are, however, two points to which he referred on which I should comment.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the general procedures for the disposal of surplus Government land. The Government are now discussing revised procedures for the disposal of such land with the local authorities and I have no doubt that these revised procedures will mark substantial improvements from the local authorities' point of view. Had we continued rigidly under the procedures which we inherited and which were in operation until this summer, there is no doubt that the position of the Christchurch Borough Council in relation to the acquisition of this industrial land would have been more difficult than it is at the moment.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the possible sale of three out of 14 acres to the G.P.O. for use as an engineering depot. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that negotiations for this sale have been unduly protracted. It was not until January of this year that the 991 G.P.O. inspected the site, but we did not then feel we could go ahead until planning permission had been obtained, and this took until September. There are still a number of fairly minor details to be worked out, but I have no reason to doubt that the sale will go through, and I hope go through in the reasonably near future.

As regards the question of Christchurch Council having an option to buy the industrial land—which is the main point with which the hon. Gentleman is naturally concerned—I do not think that we have allowed this question either to drag on unnecessarily. We could not get far on this until the planning position became clear this summer. It would have been no good proceeding when the planning position was unclear and we might have taken steps on which we would have had to go back.

At the end of August we told Christchurch Council that we would be prepared to consider in principle selling the land at current market value, subject to the proviso—which was necessary because of location of industry considerations to which the hon. Gentleman paid full attention, and I was glad to hear what he said about the attitude of the Council on this matter—that the land should be used primarily for the relocation of what are known as non-conforming industrial uses within the town—factories which are sited badly from the residential point of view, or whatever the question might be.

Subsequent discussions with the Town Clerk of Christchurch revealed that by an option Christchurch was thinking in terms of a long-term option, with ultimate provision for purchasing the land piecemeal, as the council could dispose of it to industrial users. It was not clear to us—there is no question of any blame being attached at all—that Christchurch was thinking in terms of a long-term option until September of this year, that is two months ago. The long-term option is indeed an unusual provision. I do not say that it is necessarily something that 992 we rule out for that reason, but it is without question an unusual provision in matters of this sort. None the less, in disposing of the land the Ministry of Aviation is naturally concerned as to how best to serve the general public interest, the interests of the local inhabitants of Christchurch, and those of taxpayers generally to whom we have a responsibility.

The proposal that the council should have a long-term option on the land is, however, being given urgent and sympathetic consideration. I hope that some such an arrangement may prove acceptable subject to the terms of the option which will have to be assessed by the district valuer.

I must stress that this is an unusual proposal and a proposal the details and implications of which were fully understood only as recently as September this year. If it is not possible to reach agreement on this basis—I hope it may be—and the borough council wished to buy the land, the question of loan sanction would have to be left until the money was actually wanted. There is no difficulty about it in principle and the Minister of Housing and Local Government's circular 62/65 applies even though the money may be required for purchase of land from another Government Department.

I hope that I have gone some way to clear up the important points put to me by the hon. Member. Of course it is important in these matters to proceed expeditiously, but it is also important to proceed in an orderly way so that we know the position about various planning arrangements and so that land when surplus to Government requirements, as this land has become, can be disposed of in a way which is to the best interests both of the taxpayer and the local inhabitants. We are doing our best to achieve that end.