R.A.F. LAND, COMPTON BASSETT (DISPOSAL) (Hansard, 20 January 1969)

§ Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)
I wish to raise tonight certain issues concerning the land which was formerly used by the R.A.F. at Compton Bassett. I warn the Minister that I shall also refer to land which was used by the R.A.F. at Yatesbury.
The issues at Compton Bassett relate, first, to the general question of reinstatement of land which is at present in a disgraceful state; and these same general issues also apply to Yatesbury. Secondly, at Compton Bassett there is a special issue which concerns the case of a local farmer, Mr. R. T. Henly, whose case gives rise, in my view, to very considerable concern.
The facts are simple and can be shortly stated. Compton Bassett is a village about two miles on the London side of Calne, in my constituency. Yatesbury is situated a mile or two further on in the direction of London. In 1938, with the approach of war, the Government requisitioned a good deal of agricultural land, at both Compton Bassett and Yatesbury, for the purpose of training stations for the R.A.F. Altogether they took about 190 acres at Compton Bassett and about 440 acres at Yatesbury. Subsequently, roads were constructed and buildings erected. The station at Compton Bassett was used for radar training, and the station at Yatesbury for wireless training. At neither station was there an airfield, and no flying took place.
Part of the land which was taken at Compton Bassett included 36f acres which at that time were owned by Mr. Harry Kenneth Henly, of Sands Farm. Although the land was requisitioned from Mr. Henly in 1938, it was not until April, 1942 that the land was finally conveyed to the then Secretary of State for Air. In fact, Mr. H. K. Henly died in 1959, but I have obtained my information from his son, Mr. R. T. Henly, who is still farming at Sands Farm today.
210 Mr. R. T. Henly tells me that his father was extremely co-operative with the Ministry officials at the time and placed no difficulties in their way. The deed of conveyance of April, 1942, was not taken under compulsory powers, but it is perfectly obvious that the late Mr. Henly was selling under threat of those powers, because the Government had taken his land several years before and were in physical possession of it. The price paid was £1,500, which works out at about £41 per acre. This figure was in line with agricultural values in Wiltshire at that time. Mr. R. T. Henly tells me that his father was given the firm impression, if not an actual assurance, that when the Government had no further use for the land they would sell it back to him, but, unfortunately, no such binding clause was written into the deed of conveyance.
In 1964, the camps at Yatesbury and Compton Bassett were finally closed, and the Ministry of Defence decided to dispense with all the land. The procedure for the disposal of surplus land is governed by a number of Government circulars, including Circular 47/63, issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Under the provisions of this circular, a Government Department is enabled to obtain informal planning clearance for future planning development from the local planning authority. In response to the Ministry's application, the Wiltshire County Council informed the Ministry of Defence that, in the opinion of the county council, the land at Yatesbury should be restored to agricultural use. The county council advised the Ministry that approximately 100 acres of the land at Compton Bassett could be used for sand extraction, but the rest should be restored to agriculture. Included in those 100 acres are the 36¾ acres formerly owned by the late Mr. Henly and forming part of Sands Farm.
I want to emphasise that the land at Yatesbury adjoins the main A4 road between Marlborough and Calne and is an area of very great landscape beauty. It is an expansive area on the top of a hill forming part of the Wiltshire Downs. The land at Compton Bassett is not immediately visible from the A4, but is also situated in an attractive part of the Wiltshire countryside.
211 The Ministry disposed or the buildings at Yatesbury in accordance with its usual procedure by selling all the saleable buildings by public auction. Those buildings were in part removable and in part of a permanent construction. The result was that the site was left for a long time in a shocking condition. As a result of a good deal of pressure by both the county council and the Calne and Chippenham Rural District Council, the Ministry let a contract for the tidying-up of the site after obtaining a special allocation of £3,500 for the purpose. The remnants of the buildings have now, at last, been moved and a start has been made on the removal of the concrete bases. It was then discovered that the clearance work on the site at Yatesbury was jeopardising the future agricultural use of the land, and on the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture the work has now been stopped.
At Compton Bassett, the Ministry also disposed of the saleable buildings by public auction and, again, the area was left in a disgraceful condition, in which it remains today. The remnants of many buildings are still standing and no tidying-up has taken place. I was there and walked over the land on Sunday and saw it for myself.
Considerable correspondence has taken place between the county council and the Ministry of Defence and there have been meetings between officers, and I understand the present position to be as follows. The Wiltshire County Council rightly feels that the Ministry of Defence, as landowner, should restore the land to agricultural use before disposing of it. The county council has asked the Ministry of Housing and Local Government whether grants will be made available, for both Yatesbury and Compton Bassett, to cover any loss which might be incurred in restoring to agricultural use all the land at Yatesbury and that part of the land at Compton Bassett which is not to be used for sand extraction.
I understand that in July, 1967 the County Councils Association advised the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that its view was that unless a purchaser of surplus land obtained planning permission for the retention of any buildings or structures on the land, the 212 Government Departments themselves should accept the responsibility for ensuring that the buildings were demolished and the site properly cleared.
The Wiltshire County Council goes even further and contends that former agricultural land should be restored to its former condition prior to its disposal by the Ministry of Defence, if that can be done without undue cost in the long term to defence funds. Although the county council has made its views plain to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, it has so far received no definite reply. I understand also that the County Councils Association has received no reply on the general question. In the meantime, the situation is getting worse. At Yatesbury, noxious weeds are spreading and the longer the matter drags on, the more expensive will be the task of clearance.
To resolve this deadlock, Wiltshire County Council is considering trying to acquire all or part of the land at Yatesbury so that the county council can restore the land and then sell it at a figure which will cover its expenses. The county believes that such an operation might well be financially viable. It would have the merit of ensuring that the land is restored to agriculture both speedily and satisfactorily. The county council would have to be assured, however, that should losses be incurred on the whole operation, those losses would be made good by the Government.
Therefore, on these general issues, I ask the Minister the following specific questions. First, what are the intentions of the Ministry of Defence in regard to both Yatesbury and Compton Bassett; and, in particular, does the Department intend to undertake any further clearing-up and tidying-up of these sites? Secondly, if the Department does not intend to do the work itself, is it prepared to make grants available or to obtain grants for restoring Yatesbury and that part of Compton Bassett which is not to be used for sand extraction?
Thirdly, if the Department is not prepared to clear the land itself, is it prepared in principle to sell the land at Yatesbury to Wiltshire County Council? If so, in that event, will the Department agree that the county council should be subsidised against any possible losses which are incurred after the county 213 council has restored and sold the land? I stress that it is time that these questions were answered. It seems intolerable to me that Wiltshire should be left with this horrible eyesore nearly 25 years after the war has ended and four years after the stations have been closed.
I now return to the case of Mr. Henly, which I am tempted to describe as a mini-Crichel Down situation. I remind the House that in 1938, 36½ acres were taken from the late Mr. Henly for the purpose of tie Royal Air Force station. Those acres are no longer required by the Government. Mr. Henly's son, Mr. R. T. Henly, is still farming at Sands Farm and also farming on adjoining land in the vicinity. Is he not morally entitled to have the land back?
The Government's policy since Crichel Down has never, so far as I can find out, been written into any statute. However, I think the code of practice—and the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—can be clearly stated as follows: land which is surplus to Government requirements will be offered back to former owners at market value if it is possible to use the land for agriculture and if the owner falls into one of two categories; either he must still own the estate or property of which the land formed part when acquired by the Government, or he is known to be farming within the United Kingdom.
I recently read a report in The Times of a slightly similar case, and in that report the Ministry of Defence spokesman put the matter in a slightly different way and used the following words: The former-owner policy applies to land which was bought compulsorily or under the threat of compulsion; land which was in agricultural use when it was purchased and which is still capable of agricultural use when it becomes surplus to Government requirements. I claim that this land is completely covered by those statements. Although, as I have explained, this land was not bought by compulsory purchase it was certainly bought under threat of compulsion. The land was used for agriculture when it was taken, and it is still certainly capable of agricultural use. Indeed, Mr. Henly's cows are grazing their today. Mr. Henly himself falls into both of the categories which I have mentioned, because he does own the rest of the estate still, and he is farming.
214 So why, then, does this procedure not apply to him? I may say, in passing, that he has never been approached directly by the Ministry and has never been told officially whether the land is to be offered to him or to anybody else. Apparently the reason that he cannot have the land back is the fact that there is permission for development for sand excavation on this land. As I have explained already, there is no formal planning permission for this, and the county council has merely indicated that there would be no objection under the provisions of Circular 49 of 1963. I can understand that the former-owner procedure should not apply for certain development—for example, if a housing estate is to be constructed or a factory built on the land; then it would clearly be wrong for that procedure to apply; but surely these considerations do not apply in Mr. Henly's case.
There is nothing new about this sand; it has been there for hundreds of years. Mr. Henly's father owned the land since 1919 and excavated sand there himself. I therefore claim that in the special circumstances of this case the former-owner procedure should apply to Mr. Henly. Now that the Government no longer want the land—and they do not—they should sell it back at agricultural value to Mr. Henly.
It is true, of course, that he might make a profit. Why should he not? It is land which formerly belonged to his family. In any case, if he did make a profit he would have to pay substantial betterment levy on Capital Gains Tax to the Government. If he is not allowed to make a profit the only alternative is for the State to make it, because these 36 acres of land will fetch about £40,000 at public auction; they will certainly fetch £1,000 an acre and probably more.
This situation seems to be morally unjust. Why should the State, which has had the use and benefit of another person's land for many years for wartime purposes, be enabled to make a very large financial gain out of the minerals which have always been in the land? I hope that the Minister will tell us that, in all the circumstances, he is prepared to consider the whole of this case again and, if necessary, to see that the code of practice, drawn up after Crichel Down, 215 is rewritten. I can assure him that nothing else will satisfy me or my constituent, Mr. Henly.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) for the way in which he informed me of what he intended to raise tonight. He has been most helpful. He asked me about three matters, the disposal of R.A.F. land at Yatesbury and at Compton Bassett and the treatment of Mr. Henly, the former owner of part of Compton Bassett.
The key to the Yatesbury and Compton Bassett situation is that now that the land is surplus to R.A.F. requirements temporary hutting, roads and hard standings are still left. Both stations, now that they are surplus, are left in that condition. In both cases the temporary buildings have been disposed of and the purchasers have taken away from the sites what is of value.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Ministry of Defence has spent a fair sum, £3,500, in clearing away the rubble left at Yatesbury after the auction in 1966 when the removable items were taken away. The Wiltshire County Council has stipulated that the land can be used in future only for agriculture, and the Ministry of Defence has felt that it could not incur additional expense from defence funds to take up all the concrete surfaces and restore the land to its original agricultural condition. Subject to former owner claims, the Ministry of Defence will look sympathetically at the desire of the county council to buy the land, and negotiations to that end can continue, so I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Compton Bassett is rather more difficult. The Ministry of Defence has been held up in disposing of the land for a number of reasons one of which was the problem of finding out the extent and the value of sand deposits. A second reason for the delay which has irritated the hon. Gentleman and the county council has been the retention of the married quarters, 22 acres or so, for the use of the R.A.F. at Lyneham, because this has meant the re-provision of the utilities, water, gas and 216 electricity for those married quarters. It has also been necessary to get the opinion of the Wiltshire County Council as to its future planning use.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the county council has said that a large part of the area, about 100 acres, should be planned for the extraction of sand. One difficulty here is that it is most desirable, in order to get the maximum price for the Ministry of Defence, that the maximum area of 100 acres should be used for sand extraction and should be sold like that, and the buildings on the other side of the site should be retained so that the sand extractors can use the buildings useful to the working of the sand. This difficulty affects the amenity question at Compton Bassett. It is not worth while spending money on the 66 acres where the hutting, concrete basements and roads are left if most of the area will be subjected to sand extraction and the sort of mess that goes with it, and then at the end of the day there has to be a general scheme for cleaning it up.
The best way of dealing with this is to sell the 66-odd acres of hutted remnants for agricultural use, to sell the 100 acres which includes an inset of buildings in the 66 acres for sand extraction, which would be likely to produce the maximum benefit to the Ministry of Defence, and to sell the 23 separate areas adjacent to the married quarters for agricultural use, which would present no problem.
The Wiltshire County Council has pressed for the area of 160-odd acres to be dealt with as a whole, but that is not in the interests of getting the maximum value out of the land from the Ministry of Defence point of view. However, I can give some hope to the hon. Gentleman. Under the Requisition Land and War Works Acts, there is power for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to make grants for the clearance of land, and the Wiltshire County Council is in touch with the Ministry of Housing on this issue.
Quite recently, there has been a meeting, and the Ministry of Defence supports these contacts. We are in consultation with the Ministry of Housing, and we will do all we can to see that the amenity problem is dealt with as satisfactorily as may be, bearing in mind that the sand extraction is a difficulty and that, for the time being, the whole area is not one 217 where the maximum effort should be made to put it into first class agricultural order.
As for Mr. Henly's position, 36 acres were purchased from him for military purposes. The case has been considered carefully from the point of view of the Crichel Down rules. The basis of them is that the former owner of agricultural land acquired compulsorily or under the threat of compulsion and remaining agricultural in character can have the opportunity of repurchasing his previous holding if he wants to farm it. I have looked at the debate in 1954 and the Report of the Crichel Down inquiry.
Each case has been considered on its merits, and the question of what is agricultural land is not always straightforward. One of the difficulties is that, if there is a new planning permission for the land—in other words, if it is taken out of the category of agricultural land—a new issue arises to complicate the matter. That is the position in this case, because the indicated planning permission for sand extraction removes the land from the category of agricultural to that of land indicated for industrial purposes.
When Mr. Henly's father had the land, of course, it was well known that it had sand in it. However, finding of a detailed survey indicated that planning permission for sand extraction is a new factor which, in the opinion of the Ministry of Defence, prevents the land being offered back to Mr. Henly's son. As successor to his father, he is perfectly entitled. There is no difficulty about that. However, there is the difficulty about its industrial use.

§ Mr. Awdry
Will the hon. Gentleman develop this point about the new factor? 218 Does he say that a new factor has arisen? My point is that the sand has been there all the time.

§ Mr. Boyden
I concede that at once. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the 1963 Act, and the indication of the planning permission for sand extraction is new.
Another point which militates against the land being offered back to Mr. Henly's son is that the Government must work in the public interest and obtain the best possible price from the sale of the land. There is no doubt that the 100 acres which includes the small part containing buildings should be sold as one lot to give the maximum advantage. It is not possible to offer Mr. Henly his former parcel of land on a private treaty sale. Mr. Henly probably knows that, from the financial point of view, even if it were possible to offer him his 36 acres, he would still have to pay the full market price assessed by the district valuer.
That price would be based on the land's value for sand, not on its agricultural value. Also, although the hon. Gentleman suggests that the price of £1,500 or so paid for the 36 acres was low, it was the prevailing price of the day, and I suspect that Mr. Henly's father felt at that time that he was reasonably compensated.
The two basic factors which militate against offering the land to Mr. Henly's son now are the indication of the new planning permission and that it is in the public interest to sell the whole area for sand extraction so that it can be worked as a whole.