HC Deb 28 April 1969 vol 782 cc1116-26

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

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof (Blaydon)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject of public importance. It is one on which my constituents hold the strongest views as a consequence of unwarranted circumstances that have been thrust upon them. I refer to the profound disappointment caused by the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to approve the construction of permanent dwellings. These were intended to replace occupied prefabricated bungalows that have long since outlived their usefulness in the village of High Spen, in my constituency.

But before I deal with the crux of the matter, I want to assure my hon. Friend who is to reply that I openly admit that town and country planning, in its interpretation of most complex provisions, has become a speculative subject that is not always easy to follow. I am further led to believe that the whole object of planning is to ensure that the development of land should proceed in an orderly manner. One cannot complain about attempts to achieve satisfactory standards in order that unsightly errors of the past shall not be repeated. They should be considered in the light of public interest so that justice will not be denied.

In the same sense, one can have the highest regard for Durham County Council Planning Authority, upon which falls the responsibility to master the syllabus of planning, and the scope and clarity of thought that underlies its purpose to achieve a responsive recognition by the inhabitants of the administrative area. It is, in that respect, that Blaydon Urban District Council was delighted that the county planning authority acknowledged by resolution its approval of the application to replace the prefabricated bungalows in High Spen.

It is, therefore, of some significance to note that Durham County Planning Authority advanced special factors warranting the approval of such application to build in High Spen. They are based on the fact that the existing prefabricated bungalows are served by roads and services linked to adjoining council estates, through which the use of them would reduce the cost of the replacement houses.

The planning authority also submitted that, because the site of the bungalows was in the southern part of the village, there is a substantial amount of long life property, both local authority and postwar private housing, and the redevelopment of the bungalow site would be a fruitful stimulus to maintain the viability of the existing social facilities that are needed for the long life property.

It all sounds very reasonable, sensible and encouraging, but at the same time it is also of equal significance to examine the planning authority's assumption on High Spen. In the same statement the authority claims High Spen to be a "relatively isolated mining village". According to conventional wisdom, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I have need to point out that High Spen is anything but isolated. It is just not true. It is wilfully misleading to describe it to be so.

The population of 2,000 in the village is extremely sensitive. The people do not accept that they are living in isolation. All the indications of the location of the village denote a definite and unmistakable attraction. It is served by public transport every 15 minutes to the city of Newcastle. The proximity of the village shows how it is an internal and component part of the whole area. It is directly linked with the town of Blaydon only four miles away.

We are also left to recognise that the village is within short and easy approach of other important places. They have been urbanised in the concept of undertaking mass housing programmes to accommodate communities of considerable size. This at any rate should suffice to convince anyone of the fallacy of discriminating High Spen as a "relatively isolated mining village".

It is also just as well clearly to understand that the planning authority stated in its case for approval of the application for the prefabricated bungalows to be replaced that … new development in the Urban District should be concentrated in Blaydon, Winlaton, Rowlands Gill and Highfield, which offer the best prospects for creating settlements, attracting new industry and reducing migration This is, of course, an extract taken from the county development plan approved by the Minister as long ago as 1954 and again in 1964.

I think it grossly unfair for the county authority to include this in its statement of approval. It is not a skilful way to turn its approval to good use and I will explain why. It does not stand up to present-day circumstances. Any modern secondary schoolboy will be able to argue that the conditions which applied to High Spen when the county development plan was being prepared during the period of 1947 to 1953 are very different from those of these days.

When we come to scrutinise such tragic irony, it is an entirely different matter. The difference consists in the considerable efforts made by Blaydon Council and private builders in the places referred to in the statement of the county authority. The redeeming feature of the joint process is the redevelopment and transformation of those places where, in many instances, practically nothing existed before. They have been turned into an environment of pleasant habitation.

This undoubtedly has completely changed the physical character of the area out of all recognition, so much so that both the council and private builders are now finding it very difficult to acquire land on which to build. While they are prohibited from investing in housing development through the use of available land in High Spen, it is nevertheless only natural to assume a domestic atmosphere of gloom.

We can, however, be sanguine and rule out some of the regrettable indications envisaged in the restrictive settlements policy of the county authority. For instance, apart from anything else, the village should no longer be referred to as a mining village. The mine closed many years ago and everything connected with it has been completely obliterated.

The working population, therefore, must in the main travel varying distances to work. It is an accepted pattern of life for people to travel many miles to work, either in their own cars or on public transport. There is no resentment in this respect, but in addition to the indignation emanating from the refusal to build houses, what has bred further resentment is the fact that even industrial firms wishing to establish themselves in the village have also been refused. Such a loss of job opportunity has incurred the wrath of many of my constituents. Such a state of affairs is absolutely scandalous, especially during a difficult time when we are trying every trick in the bag to attract industry and to ensure that people receive a weekly wage packet.

But none of this is particularly surprising. To put it crudely, it is the backlash of the county development plan drafted 20 years ago. To my way of thinking, some of the material points advanced by the county planning authority appear to be an obligatory way of supporting the application to build. If they are so keen for building to be permitted, one wonders why they should trot out certain aspects of the county development plan which were moulded to fulfil future requirements, as I have just said, 20 years ago.

But what has brought about the real break in confidence is the result of the conclusions of Inspector A. D. Hawkins, following the public inquiry held in Blaydon Council offices on 11th September, 1968. It was specifically held to inquire into the application to replace the prefabricated bungalows, nothing more and nothing less. I have every respect for Inspector Hawkins' ability, integrity, his outstanding knowledge on high-level experience on planning matters. But I am bound to disagree with his conclusions that influenced the Minister to refuse the application to replace the bungalows in question. The inspector states in his report that, although the application is limited to replacing the bungalows with permanent housing, the real issue in the case is much wider. He points out that the application to the settlement is of long standing, and often endorsed county settlements policy which is endeavouring to provide modern environment in selected centres, attracting industry and reducing migration.

He further states that there is insufficient change of circumstances to justify a change in that accepted policy. In the time allowed I have tried to elucidate how the claim to "insufficient change of circumstances" is a long exploded illusion. It is something that cannot be swept to one side. While events confirm to that view, we are considering how the facts bear directly and pertinently upon the reasons which have led us into the present unsatisfactory situation.

I need not remind the House that there is nothing alive that remains unchanging. Just as the world is always in a ceaseless state of flux, nothing happens without cause, and nothing happens without leaving behind some results. But the wheel of change has moved fast in the area that we are dealing with, and that is the reason why I do not for one moment accept the conclusions of Inspector Hawkins.

It is anything but satisfactory. It would have been immensely more effective, and much more correct, to have limited the entanglement within the terms of reference to the public inquiry how could it be otherwise, when the county authority approved Blaydon Council's application to replace the bungalows? It is a matter on which both authorities are in agreement, from which it can be argued that real benefit could have been achieved without conflict between them. All this is substantially true. While I do not deny the wider issue referred to by Inspector Hawkins, it is one that the community is bridled and saddled with. For better or worse, in administrative terms, it will have to wait for a shift of policy in the forthcoming five yearly review of the county development plan. In the circumstances, and to put the essential point into its proper perspective, I feel emboldened to appeal to my hon. Friend to judge the application on its true merits. It is not a massive concession to make. If nothing else it would go a long way to remove the injurious effects and enmity that exists at the present time. It would be a great thing to think it would be instrumental in relieving despondency, and lifting up the spirit of the community.

Constituents who make up this community do not seek anything great, but a blank refusal to this request will be tantamount to their forfeiting the right to a convenient and decent place in which to live. That is the basic necessity of life—after all we are dealing with human beings, not bingo numbers. Justice is supposed to be the fundamental and only virtue of social life. It should embrace all those things that are useful to society, but justice can be an odd pair of scales.

In our little corner we should strive to do whatever we can to see that justice is properly done. Without doubt the appeal that I am making for the provision of new housing accommodation, with a change of mind in that direction, would mean that we could rejoice at doing our little bit to make life a little easier for many.

On other occasions in the House I have quoted a favourite verse from Omar Khayyam. I do so again, because I think it applicable: Ah, Love, could thou and I with Fate conspire, To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits, and then, Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's desire. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate how my constituents feel aggrieved by the decision of his right hon. Friend. I hope that after tonight he will carefully consider the arguments that I have advanced on their behalf. If he can take any steps to correct the decision and allay their apprehensions, he will be performing a great service to them. It will facilitate the reconstruction of desirable confidence, and it will be one which will be greatly appreciated in being executed as a much fairer deal.

12 m.

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

I begin by paying tribute to the single-minded tenacity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) has pursued this matter on behalf of his constituents. We have had considerable correspondence on the matter, he has asked Questions about it in the House, and I know that for a long time he has been trying to secure the opportunity to raise these very important issues on the Floor of the House. I am very glad that tonight he has had this opportunity to do so.

He has done all that one could expect of a very conscientious Member of Parliament desperately concerned to do his utmost for constituents who, largely because of their location and their association with a declining industry, have had very often to put up with far more changes in fortune and in circumstances than many other sections of the community. He has performed a notable service in putting their case in the past and tonight.

I only wish that as a result of the passionate well-documented plea which he has made tonight I could announce that the Minister would reconsider the whole issue. But legally the position is as follows. Once the Minister has made a decision in a planning matter of this kind his function is finished. It is impossible to go on arguing about the decision, otherwise one would never reach the point where decision became reality.

Nevertheless, I would say to my hon. Friend that what he has said about the area and about this particular village community and the background is very important in helping us in regard to the general position of the Durham development plan. Certainly we shall want to consider every matter which he has put before the House in considering future planning matters in the area. I am only sorry, in view of the special plea made by my hon. Friend, that the Minister's legal function has already been discharged. That does not mean that my hon. Friend's efforts will not perhaps have important consequences in the future.

I hope my hon. Friend will note that I am not speaking merely academically in this matter. I have had a close interest in these sorts of problems over a great many years. Although I do not know the area as well as my hon. Friend, or the other hon. Members for Durham whom I see sitting here tonight, I have visited the area and I know the tremendous hardship and heart-burning which has been aroused by the county's original plan of categorising these villages into four groups

It was bound to be a most difficult decision, and I know only too well what those communities feel which are left out of the areas A and B, or even area C, and are categorised as High Spen. In Category D under the county development plan it is generally conceded that there should be not much development in the future and very little expenditure of capital resources. I appreciate that point very much.

This is a great human problem. One is always faced in these kinds of decisions with doing what one hopes is right for the community as a whole, and with balancing it against what human beings who live in a particular category must feel about it. I hope that nothing I say will be taken as suggesting that this is an academic paper decision without relation to the human feelings and needs of the community and its mining villages, which have given so much to the nation in the past and, I hope, will be able to do so in, perhaps, different ways in the future.

My hon. Friend appeared to think that this decision could perhaps be looked at in isolation apart from the general proposals in the county development plan. The inspector, the Ministry and the Minister have not been able to accept that view. If we could accept that view, the fact that this is merely a replacement of 30-odd prefabricated houses and bungalows by permanent buildings would be easy to solve. I must, however, remind the House that this is related to the basic plan for the county as a whole. This was the point made by the Minister. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend pay full respect to the inspector's conscientious application, although he has every right to disagree with his conclusion. That was the view which the inspector came to in relation to the plan as a whole.

In a previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), whom we are glad to have with us on this occasion—this shows how the Durham Members support one another in these important matters—I explained that the original concept of the Durham County Council—not Whitehall, but the county council—was to categorise the villages into categories A, B, C and D in that descending order because it was felt impossible to apply sufficient resources to all the settlements which have grown up round the mining industry and make them viable and effective.

Therefore, a number of criteria were, as my hon. Friend has said, chosen by the county as long ago as 1951 for categorising these villages where the county thought that there was a chance of future development, rising population and new industries and activities, and where, on the other hand, it was thought that population would be likely to decline and, consequently, the employment of scarce resources of manpower and money would be less fruitful.

High Spen and Hamsterley colliery, with which we were dealing earlier this month, were included in category D in the 1951 development plan. The Minister endorsed that plan in 1954. Throughout the last 15 years, the policy of this categorisation has been upheld both by the county council in general, although I agree that there were exceptions in two cases, and certainly by the Minister. There have been three called-in applications, as we call them, in relation to High Spen during that period.

The first review of the development plan, which was due in 1959, was not made until 1964, but even then the proposals in the review included a restatement of the village grouping policy in a slightly different form. Nevertheless, the written analysis to the plan referred specifically to all the settlements previously classified in category D, including High Spen and Hamsterley colliery.

The Minister, having taken a long time, perhaps almost as long as the county council did, to review the plan—as I say, it was due in 1959 but was not received by us until 1964—wrote a letter to the county council in July last year announcing his intention to approve the review of the development plan subject to certain modifications, which do not concern us tonight. He therefore endorsed what the county in general had put forward.

That was the position until July. Then we had the application concerning High Spen, on which the county council, as in the case of Hamsterley colliery, adopted a different attitude towards these two specific developments. I do not think they were going back generally on the position of High Spen, but they did have a different view about the developments which have been the subject of these Adjournment debates.

High Spen is, of course, one of the larger category D villages. I do know it myself. I recognise its position on this high and exposed ridge about four miles south-west of Blaydon. It is a scattered settlement on the Ryton Road, which is a winding and dangerous road, I think. It is within two miles of two settlements which get rather better treatment, category A settlement treatment, Rowlands Gill and Winlaton, and Blaydon itself is only four miles away.

In January, 1968, the county council referred to the Minister this development which has been the subject of this debate. It did that because it was a departure, and it recognised it as a departure, from its previously announced development plan, and it asked for permission to erect permanent houses on the site of those 36 prefabricated bungalows.

Why, in these circumstances, has the Minister gone against this changed emphasis in relation to this development? When a matter is referred, because it is considered by the local planning authority to be a departure from the development plan, the Minister can, if he thinks it necessary—he must, in certain circumstances—hold a public inquiry. That was done in this case. Mr. Hawkins was the inspector who went down and examined all the evidence, including the county council's case, which was very well put, and he came to the conclusion my hon. Friend has referred to. My hon. Friend referred to this—that the application is limited to the replacing of a number of prefabricated bungalows by permanent housing, but the real issue in this case is a much wider one. My hon. Friend would like to isolate this decision from the general development plan, but, rightly or wrongly, the inspector and the Department and my right hon. Friend think that it is very difficult so to do. Normally speaking, where permanent housing came to be replaced in category D villages there was a presumption against that replacement because of the general principles upon which the development plan was founded, if the population was falling, and I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is falling, and has fallen over the last few years, and the minehead is closed. Although there are, I think, 200 jobs in the settlement, some of these are filled by those who do not live any longer in High Spen. In these circumstances the general principle was a presumption against replacement of existing houses.

The inspector went on to say that, because of that, he did not feel that he could make a decision in this case without regard to the basic philosophy of the development plan He went on to say that this concerns the application to this settlement of the long-standing and often endorsed county settlement policy"— and it was endorsed in the review of the county submitted in 1964— which is endeavouring to provide a modern environment in selected centres attracting industry and reducing emigration. Having considered the reasons why High Spen was originally excluded from the list of settlements where development would be permitted I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient change of circumstances to justify a change in that accepted policy, and this is the view which, after very considerable thought, the Minister himself has endorsed. As I say, the population is falling in this area; it is very near to three centres which are category A, where there can be expansion. The Minister's view was, based on the inspector's detailed investigation, that if the objectives of the plan were to be satisfactorily achieved—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening 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 a quarter past Twelve o'clock.