HC Deb 02 April 1969 vol 781 cc619-26

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

10.17 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins (Consett)

This Adjournment debate has come on a little earlier than I expected and, judging by the Front Bench at the moment, it seems that it has come on a little earlier than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government expected.

The subject which I am raising is the refusal of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to approve house building at Hamsterley Colliery. Hamsterley Colliery is a village in the northern part of County Durham, and very pleasantly situated in the scenically superb valley of the River Derwent. Among people in the area, there is a considerable desire to live there. Only a short distance down the main road upon which the village stands is the settlement known as Hamsterley Mill, an area of housing development at an expensive level, the whole area being one in high demand and most attractive. It might be more accurate to describe the subject that I am raising as the extraordinary refusal of my right hon. Friend to approve the house building which was applied for, because it was a decision that followed upon a public inquiry at which every single piece of evidence was in favour of the application.

Before talking in more detail about the public inquiry, I want to refer to the county development plan for County Durham. When the plan was drawn up in the early 1950s all the land in the county was divided into four categories, labelled A, B, C and D. Broadly speaking, the basis on which these categories were decided was the expected trend in population. Hamsterley Colliery came into category D, which meant that it was an area where it was expected that there would be a considerable decline in the population. That would appear to have been a perfectly reasonable assumption when the development plan was drawn up, because the village was then wholly dependent for its economy and existence on the local colliery, which provided employment for almost all the men, and the means of livelihood for almost the entire village. Because a decline was expected, no development of any sort was permitted, this being usual under category D. Eventually, with the rundown of the colliery, the reserves of which were already known to be approaching their end, the village would have gone completely out of existence.

But since the county development plan was drawn up there has been a considerable change in circumstances at Hamsterley. The colliery closed a little more than a year ago, but, manifestly, the village did not die with the colliery as had been expected. In the meantime, sources of alternative employment have come to the village. It is interesting to note that when the pit closed only 60 of the 220 men employed in it lived in the village. It was apparent that the expected decline in population arising from the reduction of employment facilities had not taken place.

As I have said, it is a pleasant village. It has very good amenities, as village life goes, and, above all, it is not a remote settlement but is situated on the main road between Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Consett. It enjoys excellent communications and has very good bus services to all the places of employment and all the centres of population around and about.

Having regard to all the changed circumstances, the Consett Urban District Council applied last year for planning permission to replace 50 prefabricated bungalows, which had just about reached the end of their life, with permanent dwellings. At the same time, the National Coal Board applied for planning permission to develop another small area of land in the village. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government decided, in view of all the circumstances, to hold a public inquiry into these applications, and the inquiry was held on 10th September last year at Consett.

As I have already said, at the public inquiry every piece of evidence presented was in favour of the applications for development. Most important of all, the county council, which is the planning authority, supported the applications. The county council, which, of course, originally drew up the county development plan in which Hamsterley was put in category D, itself supported the application for development to take place there. No evidence of any sort was presented against the applications. There was total unanimity in favour of the applications.

Notwithstanding, the inspector conducting the inquiry rejected the applications as being … not in the best interests of the county as a whole". In his report, he accepted as matters of fact practically all the points that were put forward in regard to the changing circumstances which had justified the applications being made. He nevertheless recommended the rejection of the applications and, of course, the Minister accepted that recommendation.

Arising from this, I want to pose some questions. What are these alleged "best interests" of the county as a whole, since no evidence of them was presented at the public inquiry? Where did any evidence come from which was not presented at the inquiry and which indicated these so-called "best interests"? I repeat that the county council, which is, after all, the custodian of the best interests of the county as a whole, supported the applications. Was any evidence considered secretly other than what was presented at the inquiry? Was the inspector "nobbled", if I may use that word, in connection with the inquiry? If so, by whom, and for what purpose?

If any of these things did happen, they would, of course, have been quite improper, and if any evidence was taken into account that was not presented at the inquiry, which was set up for the express purpose of considering the evidence, this would be so improper that I should have to ask my hon. Friend to declare the findings of the inquiry null and void.

Even if none of these things did happen, it still seems to me to be a profoundly improper decision, because it was taken quite contrary to all the evidence presented at a public inquiry instituted and held in order to hear the case. Either way it seems to me a quite indefensible decision, and I invite my hon. Friend to declare that in the circumstances the decision and the findings are null and void.

I do not for one moment consider that the case of Hamsterley Colliery is closed. Durham County Council is in the process of having another look at the county development plan and has invited all the district councils in the country to submit their observations on the categorisation of the various settlements within their own districts in order that these can be considered at county level. In response to this invitation from the county council, Consett Urban District Council is proposing to submit a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment of Hamsterley and the little stretch of the Derwent Valley in which the village is situated.

The proposals would involve the demolition, which is generally acceptable, of some other outlying settlements which are also in category D and for the retention of which a case could not be made. What is proposed is to demolish certain of the more outlying communities to remodel Hamsterley in a scheme of comprehensive development, bearing in mind employment opportunities, the excellence of the communications to all the major centres of industry and population, and the demand to live in this very pleasant corner of County Durham. Having all these points in mind, it is the intention of Consett Urban District Council to submit proposals for such a comprehensive redevelopment of Hamsterley and the alteration of its categorisation in category D.

The decision which was taken at the public inquiry was wrong and was contrary to every piece of evidence then presented. I do not consider the matter to be closed. I look forward in due course to seeing in the comprehensive development plan for the area which the district council is to present the re-categorisation of Hamsterley and the coming to fruition of the comprehensive redevelopment proposals.

10.32 p.m.

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

By the letters which he has written to the Department and by the questions which he has put to us and certainly by his speech tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) has become known as one deeply and personally involved in the future of this village. The House will share my view that his personal identification with the problem of the future potential of the village and his effort to rescue it from its categorisation are noteworthy and humane. I am sorry that on planning grounds and on the general concept of the Durham plan of the category D villages scheme I cannot tell my hon. Friend that here and now we are to recategorise the village as he would like. I cannot do so for several reasons, some legal and some practical.

I can best serve the House by referring first to the general background to this problem in a very difficult area of the county. The county council's village regrouping scheme has been in existence for a long time. It was one of the most contentious of the county's proposals in its development plan, but the county has stuck to it for many years. There was an attempt in the development plan, which was submitted to the Minister in 1951 and approved in 1954, to make certain categories of villages. I will explain the reasons.

This is a county which has been closely bound up with exploitation of coal, and all the effects of the coal industry are deeply ingrained in the whole history of the county and the lives of so many of its inhabitants. As the nature of the contribution of the coal industry changed, it left a large number of settlements—some villages, some small towns, some not much more than rows of houses—which had been created round the pithead. I do not know Durham as well as my hon. Friend and perhaps other hon. Members, but I have visited Durham several times, specifically last year when the villages were being considered, and I know that the county is encompassed by a large number of settlements arising from the development of the coal industry.

In 1951, 18 years ago, the county put forward in its development plan a policy to avoid dissipating cash resources and services, and to concentrate future development at a certain number of selected points. As a general principle, this was probably right having regard to the large number of settlements. Such a policy would ensure that modern facilities could be provided in sizeable urban centres, and so prevent the drift of population. It would enable some settlements to be cleared and ensure that services and resources were better used in centres which had houses which were not so old and where expansion could be achieved. This is a commonsense policy which has commended itself to successive Administrations.

Hamsterley Colliery was included in Category D in the 1951 plan. The reasons originally given for the classification were the decline in population, future lack of local work, the poor condition of much of the existing property, the lack of social facilities and the poor siting of the settlement. Although Hamsterley Colliery has a much better siting than many, and good communications, paragraph 6 of the written analysis of the re-examination of the plan in 1964 re-endorses the general sentiments to which I have referred and which were felt still to apply to the village about which my hon. Friend has shown such deep and human concern. Although the village is better than many in attractive siting and having good communications, the planners would say that it is not a well sited community because it extends for almost a mile on either side of a busy main road and lies on a steep north facing slope of the Derwent Valley. The very nature of this siting makes redevelopment or expansion both physically difficult and, I imagine, very expensive. I do not think that my hon. Friend will deny that much of the residential and business property is old and in poor condition. I am aware that there has been a recent extension to a Roman Catholic primary school and that there is a new factory employing some 50 persons. Certainly those are new factors to take into account. But the colliery, which once employed over 230 people, finally closed in February of last year.

This settlement, Hamsterley Colliery, is only three-quarters of a mile north-east of Ebchester, which is a category B village; that is, one where new development is permitted. Consett and Rowlands Gill, the nearest category A settlements, are each about three miles away. So, even if the kind of change that my hon. Friend would like has not been recommended and certainly not approved by the Ministry, Hamsterley Colliery is near places where development is permitted and near two category A settlements.

Mr. David Watkins

Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, there is a great deal of good-standard long-life residential property in the village. No one wants to preserve the old and unsatisfactory property to which he has referred. However, he has said that the village is only three miles from Consett. Bearing in mind the excellent communications, and the fact that many people like to live in villages if communications are good, does that no strengthen the case?

Mr. Skeffington

Those are factors which I would not want to ignore. This is a matter of finally making up one's mind, in the light of the facts, whether or not the original concept of the county should be supported. I agree that there are these features to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Turning to the history of the case and why the Minister took the decision that he did, I come to August, 1967, when two planning applications were referred to the Minister by the county council because it considered that they were departures from the development plan. One was submitted by Consett Urban District Council and was for the erection of permanent houses on land occupied by temporary bungalows. The other was submitted by the National Coal Board.

The Minister was informed that the county planning committee thought that the applications might be approved in these two cases. This seemed to be a considerable departure from what had hitherto been the accepted policy for a very long time—accepted by the county and supported by Ministers of Planning of previous Administrations.

In the circumstances, the Minister thought it right to hold a public inquiry where evidence could be heard. An experienced inspector was sent to listen to the cases which were made. I think that it is important to bear in mind what the inspector said in his conclusions after listening to the evidence and visiting the site. Having set out the facts, he said: Bearing in mind the above facts, I am of the opinion that, although these applications are relatively limited in scope, they raise an issue which is much wider … I accept that some of the reasons for not including Hamsterley Colliery in the list of settlements where development should be permitted are not so strong today as when the county development plan was approved in 1954 because of the clearance of old housing and the new employment opportunities. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the aim of the policy can only be achieved if development is continued to be concentrated in the selected larger settlements such as Hamsterley Colliery's near neighbour, Ebchester. In other words, the policy of not dissipating resources and services ought, in the Inspector's view, to continue.

The inspector's last finding in paragraph 32 is: Under these circumstances, despite the strong community spirit"— I think that everbody recognises this, and it was my impression when I visited the area last year— the very strong local support for these applications and the weight of the special load factors, I consider that to allow these applications would not be in the best interests of the county as a whole. The inspector meant that if we allowed this sort of development we should go back on what had been the settled planning policy of concentrating development on a certain number of settlements.

This report was very carefully considered by the Minister. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not suggest that we did not consider it very carefully. Indeed, I was fortunate in being able to see a number of category D villages and other types of village where development was to be encouraged. The Minister, having considered the inspector's report, decided that it should be upheld and that the long settled policy of both the county and previous Governments should be upheld. For that reason, the two applications were refused.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

What seems puzzling is that there were already prefabs there and this was merely a replacement. It seems, therefore, that the policy is not merely to stop development but to run down the village, because this is refused replacement.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows that one result of this categorisation will be that many of these——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.