HC Deb 22 March 1967 vol 743 cc1877-86

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

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a situation which is causing quite unnecessary hardship and distress to a number of my constituents who live on the fringe of the village of Hockley, in Essex.

The hardship in this case arises from an arbitrary planning decision taken over two years ago to include a residential area of some 32 acres in the proposed "green belt", and also, I regret to say, from the failure of the Minister, at least up till now, to confirm or reject that decision, despite the fact that he has been made aware of the distress which it has caused.

Even if this were a case where it could be argued that private interests should be made to yield to the public good, there would be grounds for protesting against the delay and uncertainty caused. But, as I hope to show, the contrary is the case. There is no pressing public need which justifies the treatment meted out to my unfortunate constituents. Since this is a matter which could be resolved by the Minister administratively, I am making a plea to him to make a decision without further delay and to end the two years of misery and uncertainty which my constituents have had to endure.

Briefly, the facts are these. In March, 1965, the Essex County Council submitted the revised county development plan for the Minister's approval. The plan included a proposal to designate as public open space an area of 32 acres on the east side of Plumberow Avenue, about a mile from the centre of Hockley. Within the area at that time, there were about 100 people living in 30 or more houses and bungalows, most of which were built in the late 'thirties or since the war.

As I have seen for myself, the majority are pleasant, well-equipped, brick-built dwellings with well-kept gardens. Ironically, the owners of 10 of these dwellings have had planning permission in recent years to make improvements and extensions. It seems that they have wasted their time and money. If they wish to sell, there are no buyers except, perhaps, the local authority. If they wish to remain, they are faced with the prospect of compulsory purchase at some unspecified date in the future.

Thus, if this ludicrous proposal is approved by the Minister, perfectly sound dwellings will have to be acquired at considerable public expense by the local council and then demolished, at a time when that authority already has a long waiting list for accommodation and there is a national shortage of houses. Already because one family has emigrated, a perfectly sound house has been bought by the council and the roof ripped off to prevent anyone living there. This is planning gone mad.

As any sane person would expect, the proposal aroused intense local opposition, and not merely from the residents directly affected. The idea of providing additional open space for the people of Hockley was not disputed by the residents; it was welcomed. But, as deputations pointed out to me, a far more suitable area existed to the west of the village comparable in size, unencumbered by houses, unsuitable for agriculture, and much nearer to the bulk of the residents who could be expected to use it.

A public local inquiry to hear objections to the county development plan as a whole opened in February, 1966. But it was not until April that objections to the Hockley proposal were heard, over a year after the blow had fallen on the residents.

In January, 1966, I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in these terms: I trust that the Minister's attention will be specially drawn to this nonsensical proposal which has caused serious anxiety to the householders concerned, and will cause them much inconvenience and loss if it is not quashed, as well as wasting the time of your Inspector, myself and numerous officials. One can only assume that the proposal originated from some 'planner' drawing lines on a map without having visited the area or having considered alternatives in the locality for the provision of open space which would not inflict injury on existing householders. Whether this was so or not I would argue that it is proposals of this kind, involving heavy and unnecessary expenditure, which bring planning into disrepute. I was assured by the Parliamentary Secretary on 4th February that … careful consideration will be given to all the representations before a decision is reached. Although the objections were heard in April, the months slipped by without further word, and in August I was obliged to write again to the Parliamentary Secretary, saying: Surely by now on a small matter of this kind of decision could have been reached? The constituents concerned cannot sell their properties and feel that they have been treated very badly indeed by the inclusion of their area as one for open space. As I think I made clear at an earlier stage I entirely agree with them. I would be glad if you could let me know how the matter stands … The reply this time came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, saying flatly that it would not be possible to consider this particular problem in isolation. Any decision would have to be properly related to the review proposals as a whole. That was rubbish. Any objective look at the problem would show that a decision would be taken on the merits of this particular case, if the will to do so existed.

The Parliamentary Secretary ended his letter by blandly informing me: If any of the owners whose properties are affected by the allocation are suffering hardship because of planning blight, it is open to them to ask the council to buy their property on these grounds. That letter was dated the 7th September, 1966. The blow had first fallen on the unfortunate residents in March, 1965, and thus we were getting towards the end of 1966, with no decision in sight. During that period the residents found that they could not sell their properties nor could they develop them. Some of them were ill with worry.

Therefore, on 19th October, 1966, I wrote again, as follows: It is really monstrous to suggest that if the unfortunate people concerned are suffering hardship they should get out of their homes and ask the Council to buy them, a course which would involve heavy public expenditure at a time when your Department has had to curtail a wide range of necessary public services. In any event, this suggestion pre-judges the Minister's decision on the matter and I have already told you that this particular proposal has no merit. In my view it is reasonable to suppose that the Minister may very well decide not to authorise such a waste of public money. Is it not possible, therefore … to look at the matter separately and urgently in order that these people can be put out of the misery they have suffered for some considerable time and which our ponderous planning procedures seem likely to condemn them to endure for many months to come? I was told, in reply, that there were difficulties: I would like to be able to say that an early decision could be given on a specific question but I know you will appreciate the difficulties. The planning of a whole area necessitates the careful provision for all the various land uses; to change one proposal inevitably has an effect on another. For example, provision of public open space in a district will depend to a large extent on the total needs of an area … I can assure you, however, that he will issue decisions on all the review proposals as soon as possible. Let the House ponder those words—"as soon as possible".

Nothing has happened since, except that I have had heartbreaking letters from residents which show that, if anything, I have underestimated the harm that this wrongful decision and the Minister's refusal to act has done. I want now to read some brief extracts from those letters. The first says: Two years ago the open space was proposed, since then we have been living in a state of terrible anxiety. I have spent most of my working life building homes for others. We would like to know now whether this is our home or not. P.S. We cannot even sell the place to relieve our anxieties. The next letter reads: My property is a modern brick-built bungalow and, by many of today's standards, spacious. There follow details—I have seen the house. The letter then continues: A large amount of the work necessary to bring the place up to its present standard was carried out as a result of planning permission granted to me by the very authorities who are now requesting permission to nullify all the time, money, and labour involved by demolition if and when they can. I would also like to bring to the notice of whosoever has to give a decision on the proposed plan the effect on people living under a shadow, not knowing how the education of their children is going to be affected and in my own case, being a Civil Servant who is considered mobile, especially on promotion, whether or not I would have either to resign, thus losing hard-won pension rights, or perhaps go into lodgings away from my family. An early decision would be beneficial to all concerned and anything you can do to expedite this would be greatly appreciated. The third letter states: My property being 'blighted', prevents me from selling on the open market. This has already meant the loss of a better position with my company in South Wales. Having decided to disrupt my life by their insane proposal to 'condemn' this soundly constructed post-war property, this lack of decision seems to be the salt that is rubbed into the wound. Should I plan for the future here? I am not growing younger. There follow heartbreaking references to the home that this man and his wife have built up.

The decision of the planners in this case was wrong from the very beginning, and it was taken without regard to local circumstances. Since then my constituents have endured two years blighting of their hopes, with the Minister declining to intervene. And to what end? To meet some great community need for land so that others could be housed or that roads could be built, or a fine park established?

No. The only development so far, apart from the misery caused to innocent people, is that the local ratepayers have had to buy one house, presumably with Ministry consent, so that it can be rendered uninhabitable. Will this bureaucratic stupidity continue? It is a scandalous state of affairs, and my purpose in raising it tonight is to persuade the Minster to put an end to the whole matter by making a simple decision to reject the proposal, and to reject it now.

11.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has put his constituents' case forcibly and with reasonable accuracy, and they will be grateful to him for having taken this matter up for them.

But he was a little unfair to my right hon. Friend on his part in the matter, as I shall try to explain. The hon. Gentleman starts from the assumption that this is a bad decision by the planning authority. He used phrases like "ludicrous proposals" "nonsensical idea" and "arbitrary planning", and so on. I want to make clear that the planning authority for these purposes is the Essex County Council—not a bureaucrat, not a back room planner and certainly not my right hon. Friend.

The planning authority responsible for preparing amendments to the development plan is the county council and under the law it has prepared its plan for the whole County of Essex. As the hon. Gentleman said, it submitted it in March, 1965. It is a very large and comprehensive plan for a very complicated and difficult county which has many problems—of expanding population, of varieties of terrain, and so on, and varied qualities in housing.

The plan led to 1,300 objections being lodged. There were 20 objections to the particular proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. An inquiry was held a year ago, starting in February, 1966. It was not a 24-hour working day inquiry, with a report written over the week-end; the whole inquiry took five months, ending in July.

After the inquiry had been completed and the tremendous amount of material assembled, the inspector had to prepare his report. After his report has been prepared the decision must be not only on this particular scheme, but on all the other matters concerned in the inquiry.

When the hon. Gentleman says that what my right hon. Friend should have done was simply to say, "This is a lot of tripe. We will have this out and settle it straight away", he is really saying that my right hon. Friend should pre-judge the considered recommendation of the planning authority, which he has no legal or moral right to do. It is his duty under the law to consider all the objections, and to consider the proposals of the planning authority, and, having considered them all, and having had regard to the inquiry, to make his decision.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are supervised not only by the High Court, which can deal very firmly with any deviations from the law, but also by the Council on Tribunals, which watches over procedure in these matters with great care. My right hon. Friend has to look at all these matters together before coming to a final conclusion, and letters which the hon. Gentleman quoted set the position up as it is. It is true that it is a long business, and it would be wrong to try to gloss over this and pretend that it is something which can be done quickly. It will take quite a time to look into all these matters.

The hon. Gentleman might go on to say that, accepting that we cannot deal with this by some sort of summary rejection, why not now pick out the parts of it which affect Hockley and deal with these in isolation from the others. There are many difficulties about this. It could be done. I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sheltering behind the law and saying that it could not be done. It could be done under the law, but it would be difficult to do in practice.

In the first place, it would mean selecting areas in which everybody feels that his own problem is very urgent and should be dealt with. It would be very difficult to say to one part of the county, "This is urgent and must be dealt with quickly", and to another part that something can wait. Difficulties of this kind do arise.

The other difficulty is that of defining the area to be taken out. One cannot tell whether the county is being reasonable about the allocation of open spaces unless one knows what the size of the population is going to be, where it is to be situated, and what alternative spaces will be available. The difficulty about planning is that if we are to do it properly and adequately we must have a comprehensive view of an area. This is the whole point of having a development plan.

The position is difficult for people who suffer from what is generally known as planning blight. I do not hide that. It is worrying for those concerned. I am not quite clear what the problem is, because the hon. Gentleman says, "It is such a fantastic idea that you could not even for a moment let the planning authority acquire the property". We have to look at the proposals. There are only two things that we can really do about it. We can allow the planning authority to acquire where there is blight and give loan sanctions, or we can leave the position as it is.

The people who are not moving, and who do not intend to move, may find the situation worrying, but they are not discommoded to the extent that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is fairly clear from the plans that these are proposals which will not happen tomorrow. They are in the second phase of the plan, that is for 1972 to 1981, so it is not an immediate disaster which is going to happen, and therefore people who are wondering whether they can take a job tomorrow are getting their perspective a little out of focus.

It is true that people who want to move are in a difficulty, and this is the point in giving permission to the planning authority to acquire if the property is offered to it.

Mr. Braine

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the present economic circumstances, with an acute housing shortage, not only in my constituency, but in other parts of the country, loan consent will be given to the local authority to acquire houses which in some cases are worth more than £4,000 if the owner wants to emigrate or move somewhere else in the country, and that the authority will then be able to rip off the roofs of these houses? Is he saying that that sort of thing can be justified? Surely the obvious thing to do is to treat this as an exceptional case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he will.

Mr. MacColl

What happens to the houses, whether they can be occupied temporarily or not occupied, is for the planning authority to say. The hon. Gentleman must not put the direct blame on my right hon. Friend. It is his county council and the electors who have voted for it who have the direct responsibility, not my right hon. Friend. We do not like giving loan sanction to planning authorities to acquire land for blight. We do not like acquisition in advance of requirements, because it has inflationary effects, but when we are faced with severe hardship it is only reasonable that we should give permission for the planning authority to help in this way.

The hon. Member may well say that this is a very unfair and difficult procedure and may suggest that it leads to many hardships. You would frown on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I launched into any general anticipation of legislation on the matter. I will only say that because of these difficulties with development plans, the time taken to amend them, and many other major planning problems, the planning advisory croup was set up.

The hon. Member will be familiar with the P.A.G. report and my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are considering what can be done to bring that into operation. There are difficulties about the working of this machinery, because plans are very detailed and the machinery to deal with them is slow and people are caused worry and concern.

In the meantime, all my right hon. Friend can do, governed by his legal responsibilities, is to hold the balance fairly as between the planning authority, which thinks that this is the right solution for Essex, and the individual objectors with whom the hon. Gentleman agrees who think that it is not. There is a clear dispute. It is quite wrong to regard this as a completely arbitrary and unreal situation. It is a clear difference of opinion between two sincere collections of people who have different views about the future of this area. My right hon. Friend's duty is to hold the balance evenly between them and to do his best to help when he can to deal with hardship.

Mr. Braine

I hope that this is not the last word on the matter, because it is not just a difference between two sincere groups of people. It is a difference between planners looking at a map and drawing a line and people whose homes and futures are at stake. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a planning blight. It would not be any exaggeration to say that the delay over the last two years has been a blight upon the hopes of these people. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will consider treating this as an exceptional case because of the human factors involved?

Mr. MacColl

I would not shut my mind to the possibility of doing anything if it could be done, and I have said that I think that it could be done within the law. However, there are great practical difficulties and it would be unreal to pretend that they could be overcome. We shall certainly consider the situation to see whether anything can be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.