TELEPHONE SERVICE (ROTTINGDEAN EXCHANGE) (Hansard, 14 June 1967)

§ Mr. Dennis Hobden (Brighton, Kemp-town)

The matter which I wish to raise is a disgraceful state of affairs and a glaring example of an ordinary citizen's harsh treatment by a Government Department. A constituent of mine, Mr. Cyril Woodcock, owns a property known as Poet's House, because the poet Sir William Watson used to own it. It is a charming property, consisting of a maisonette with five rooms on the upper floor, and a shop below bringing in £416 per annum. It is in Marine Drive, Rottingdean, overlooking the sea. Rottingdean is an old-world suburb of my constituency in Kemptown, Brighton.

My grievance arises from the erection of an automatic telephone exchange immediately behind this property. Some years ago, part of the rear garden of Poet's House was sold and a bungalow built on the site. This caused no difficulties or complaints from neighbouring property owners, but the G.P.O., to expand their telephone services, bought the site after a long period, demolished the bungalow and built the new exchange.

This started the trouble for Mr. Woodcock. The exchange eventually drove him elsewhere, as it was three and a half feet from the back door of Poet's House and, when it began operating, it produced flashing lights, continuous noise and interference with television reception and, worst of all, overshadowed his premises. These factors drove him to find peace of mind elsewhere.

520 But it was one thing to move and another to sell the house. It had been valued at £8,500, but despite having been on the market for almost two years, it has not been sold. He has reduced the price to £6,000, but still cannot sell it. This is extraordinary, as any vacant property in Rottingdean is usually immediately sought after because of the neighbourhood's character. Mr. Woodcock cannot sell his property because of the exchange, without which the maisonette and the shop would undoubtedly have been sold at the original price long before now.

I place the responsibility for this on the Post Office and the Postmaster-General and nobody else, but trying to get justice for the owner is another matter, because my right hon. Friend is running away and denying responsibility. I thought that this would be an ideal case for the newly appointed Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate, but I find that Sir Edmund Compton has no jurisdiction in this type of case. This might be a clear example of another Government non-starter, so I come back to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to seek justice. However, so far, I have looked in vain.

My right hon. Friend and I have had continuous correspondence since November last year. In the Postmaster-General's letter to me dated 14th September, 1966, he agreed and admitted that the new telephone exchange stood close to the rear of Poet's House. He went on to make the absurd statement that the exchange had not impaired the amenities to such an extent that an ex gratia payment should be offered.

This is manifestly absurd and is disproved by the fact that nobody would purchase the premises at the present ridiculously cheap price. One has only to visit the premises to see why this should be the case. My right hon. Friend's letter also referred to the fact that, in accordance with the usual procedure, the building plans were put to the local authority, which had approved them after meeting a number of objections.

I feel qualified to comment on this aspect because not only was I an employee of the Brighton Post Office before coming to this House, but for a number of years was a member of Brighton's 521 Town Planning Committee. This matter was never a straightforward issue of planning permission, and the Minister knows that Government Departments do not necessarily have to obtain planning consent, but can erect buildings where and when they like. Nevertheless, they go through the motions of consulting local authorities, although I believe that the procedures place some duress on these authorities.

In this case, there is a wider history. I have mentioned that the site of this controversy is Rottingdean, a charming, old-world village whose residents are rightly fierce in protecting the amenities and character of the area. Rottingdean also has an active Preservation Society which has for many years performed sterling work in ensuring that no planning blunders disturb the neighbourhood. It has been largely successful in its endeavours.

The local authority has co-operated with the Preservation Society on every possible occasion to make sure that Rottingdean retains its charm. But the local authority has been under other pressures. For example, the G.P.O. pointed out that there could be no extension of the telephone exchange in the area while it could not find a suitable site for an exchange. Earlier sites had come under public criticism and, as the delay in finding a suitable site continued, so the pressures on the telephone service became worse and the number of complaints increased.

It is against this background that Brighton's Planning Committee, in a mood of near-desperation, gave its planning consent. But it was a consent forced on it by the urgency of the situation and the knowledge that, in the end, the G.P.O. could build where it liked and if it liked without so much as a "By your leave".

Mr. Woodcock, as the victim, because he has been forced to move from Poet's House, now has a large mortgage on his new house and cannot sell Poet's House. His plight is one of urgency which requires an urgent solution. Despite this, my right hon. Friend continues with his claim that the owners have no claim in law for compensation. He says in his letter that the solicitors representing Mr. Woodcock were invited to submit specific 522 details of any claim the owners might have; and my right hon. Friend maintains that such details have not been submitted.

The truth of the matter is that the solicitors representing Mr. Woodcock have done nothing but draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the financial implications and loss of amenity. Mr. Woodcock has done the same, and so have I. My right hon. Friend has all these facts. What more does he want? Is not the truth that this is a case of prevarication and subterfuge, with my right hon. Friend sheltering behind legal gobbledegook?

It is prudent to mention that at one time the G.P.O. was prepared to purchase Poet's House, but because it could not obtain planning assurances from the local authority, it did not proceed with the deal. However, Mr. Woodcock has been left with a sizeable can to carry as a result of the planning permission the G.P.O. managed to obtain. This is not a case where the Minister should take refuge behind the comparative safety of the legal advice he may have been given.

Enough money has already been spent by Mr. Woodcock in trying to obtain justice and this is clearly a case where some humanity is required. I demand it from a Labour Postmaster-General. I want an assurance that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General concedes that an injustice has been suffered and that, on humanitarian grounds alone, the Department is prepared to arbitrate on this question, because for far too long this matter has been left hanging in the air.

It is equally true to say that this whole issue has left a nasty taste in everybody's mouth. It is another of those occasions when the suffocating bureaucracy of a Government Department is unable, or refuses, to mete out justice to an ordinary citizen—another example of the humble individual having his rights treated in a deplorable way.

The solicitors acting for Mr. Woodcock have said in correspondence that this is a flagrant example of the Post Office overriding the private citizen in a dictatorial fashion, and then declining to pay compensation for the continuing damage. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.

523 This matter is a scandal and should not happen under a Labour Administration. Even worse, it is a disgrace that a Labour Minister should countenance such injustice. I urge my hon. Friend to think again, to show that there can be a human side to a public undertaking and that the rights of ordinary individuals, even though sometimes they may not be specifically backed by legal arguments, will be protected by an understanding Minister and Department.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) on his success in being able to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I have listened most carefully to his exposition. He has been rather vociferous in his comments about the attitude of my Department in this matter. He has been directly critical of the attitude of my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for the Department, and I will endeavour to put the side of the Post Office against the case which my hon. Friend has put on behalf of his constituent.

I quite understand that Mrs. Grey should feel strongly about this issue. I say Mrs. Grey rather than Mr. Woodcock because we understand that the representations made about Poet's Corner were made on her behalf. Most of us, if we had an open piece of land next to our home, would prefer that it should not be built on. But, equally, the owner of such a piece of land must, within proper limits, have the right to make use of it; and to put the matter in perspective I will briefly go over the history of it as seen from the Post Office side.

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have a tremendous demand for telephones, particularly in the south-east of England. If we are to meet it, we must install more equipment in our telephone exchanges. This means, in many cases, that we have to enlarge the building. Rottingdean is such a case. We needed to enlarge the exchange; so, in 1963, we bought an adjacent house and garden. This is the piece of land behind Mrs. Grey's property on which the extension to the exchange has been built.

By a long-standing administrative arrangement, the Post Office, like other 524 Government Departments, consults local planning authorities to obtain planning clearance for its developments. We did this as regards Rottingdean Exchange in 1962. The planning authority, in the usual way, invited comments from the owners and occupiers of neighbouring property, including Mrs. Grey. After it had considered these comments, and agreed with us about some modification of our proposals, the authority gave its clearance.

About two and a half years later, in June, 1965, when the extension to the exchange was being built, a firm of solicitors acting for Mrs. Grey drew attention to the possibility of damage to the foundations of her house, and claimed compensation for loss of light and amenity owing to the erection of the new building. The Post Office solicitor replied saying that he did not understand on what legal grounds Mrs. Grey could claim that the Post Office development had depreciated the value of her property.

We heard nothing further until November, 1965, when the solicitors asked whether the Post Office would be willing to buy Mrs. Grey's property for a possible further extension of the exchange. We considered this suggestion most carefully, and, indeed, got to the point of agreeing a purchase price, but the local planning authority then made it clear that planning clearance was unlikely to be given for a further extension of the exchange on Mrs. Grey's property.

In these circumstances, we decided that the property would be of no use to us, and early in 1966, through our agents, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, we told Mrs. Grey's agents that we were no longer interested in the purchase.

About six months later Mrs. Grey's solicitors—not the original solicitors, but another firm—wrote to us claiming that much damage had been and was being done to her property and to her rights as an owner. They also said that legal proceedings were contemplated in the absence of any proposals from the Post Office to compensate Mrs. Grey. They also asked how it was that planning permission had been given for the extension without consultation with Mrs. Grey.

The Post Office solicitor, in reply, referred them to the letter he had sent in 1965 to the solicitors then acting for Mrs. Grey, and explained the procedure by 525 which we had obtained planning clearance. In reply, Mrs. Grey's solicitors said that, unless the Post Office wished to revive the idea of buying her property, they would take the necessary steps to enforce her claim. On being told that we still did not wish to purchase the property, they said that proceedings were being drafted and that they were seeking to arrange for the matter to be raised in this House.

Shortly after this, my hon. Friend, the Member for Brighton, Kemptown wrote to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General about the matter. My right hon. Friend explained that he was advised that Mrs. Grey did not appear to have any legal claim and that the new building, though it stood close to a part of Mrs. Grey's house, did not appear to have impaired her amenities to such an extent as to justify any offer of an ex gratia payment in compensation; and he indicated that we had not received, but would, of course, consider carefully if they were received, specific details of any legal claim.

If, for example, infringement of rights of light was claimed, the Post Office would need to know the extent of the interference with access of light to each window and the use to which the affected rooms were put; or, if Mrs. Grey were claiming that the structure of her house had been damaged, it would be necessary to know the nature and extent of the damage. Without such details there was no judging whether there was any validity in the claim.

This really is the vital point. Though it is difficult to be certain, in the absence of specific details, the advice my right hon. Friend has received is that Mrs. Grey does not appear to have any legal claim. We have invited her solicitors to send us details if they think that she has a legal claim, and I should like this 526 morning to repeat that invitation. If they are in any doubt about what is required, the Post Office solicitor will be glad to clarify this point if they will get in touch with him.

Except in so far as there is an infringement of a legal right, a claim on the ground of loss of amenity is a claim for an ex gratia payment, and we do not think that there has been such an impairment of amenity as would justify such a payment. It is true that Mrs. Grey's house is on the seafront and, naturally, is designed to get the maximum benefit from the sea view and the sunshine from the south. The extension to the telephone exchange is behind the house and to the north of it. The view which Mrs. Grey claims is blocked by our extension is inland to the Downs, and the extent to which this view could be enjoyed from the house was, I suggest, even before the extension to the exchange, extremely limited.

I can quite understand Mrs. Grey's feelings about this matter, but as owners of the adjoining land we are entitled to make use of it within proper limits. We need to do so to give an essential service to the local community. I repeat the invitation we have made to Mrs. Greay's solicitors to send us specific details of any claim they feel she may have, and I can assure my hon. Friend, who has so ably presented the case on behalf of his constituent, that any such details will be given careful and proper examination. Beyond this, with the best will in the world, it would not be right for me to go in this matter, which has been going on for so long.