HC Deb 05 May 1969 vol 783 cc225-34

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

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I welcome this opportunity to raise the problem of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Berry, at the "Waggon and Horses", Ingleby Arncliffe. I find it very difficult to raise an Adjournment debate without the Minister present. I very much hope that he will be coming here to deal with this problem. Mr. and Mrs. Berry have a public house, garage and caravan site on the A.19, which has recently been improved and where a fast section of dual carriageway has been constructed.

Mr. Berry opened a filling station in 1954, and in 1955 applied for a caravan site on the southern portion of a field with access through the filling station. Consent was refused. He applied again in 1960 for six caravans for a period of five years. This was allowed. The consent was renewed in 1965 for a period of 18 months, and the permitted number of caravans was increased to 10, together with places for two touring caravans. The increase in number was at the suggestion of the Stokesley Rural District Council. Consent has now been refused, and there is no caravan site on the A.19.

It appears that permission has been refused because caravans entering and going out of the car park would create a traffic hazard on the A.19. Only one caravan left the site in 1968 and only one went on tour in 1967. Only five caravans visited the site in 1968, including three owned by foreigners.

At present, some 300 to 400 vehicles visit the filling station and inn each day during the summer, including a number of trailer caravans, calling for petrol. Recently, when the caravan rally was on, because of the excellent access on the A.19, 20 caravans called to fill up on their way to and from the rally in one weekend.

Each week, large brewery lorries and trailers visit the inn. Each week, three large articulated tankers visit the filling station, together with other large vehicles, bringing oil and other requirements for the filling station and public house.

It is difficult to understand why the Minister has refused permission to continue the caravan site when so few caravans come in or go out of the park, and they normally remain for the whole of the summer season. To base his argument on the traffic hazard which these caravans create is difficult to understand.

The other reason for refusal was the effect of the caravan park on the appearance of the area. Mr. Berry has stated that he is happy to do the necessary landscaping to improve the appearance of the site. The site has been in existence since 1960, and no objection on the ground of appearance had been raised until the Minister's inspector put this forward following the inquiry on 9th January, 1969. I know the site well. It is not unattractive. It is kept in excellent condition, and Mr. and Mrs. Berry have conformed to all the requirements asked for by the local planning authority.

I recognise that the volume of traffic on the A.19 has risen considerably during the last few years. I understand that a count was taken in 1965 which gave a flow of 4,620 vehicles in a 16-hour day. About 25 of these were heavy vehicles. I believe that the flow of traffic is estimated to have risen by about 5 per cent. each year since.

I must point out that there is an excellent acceleration lane running into the frontage of the petrol filling station and the inn, and this gives a very good pull-in for caravans off the A.19. The caravans are visible at a distance of about 2 miles from the footpath on the escarpment of the Cleveland Hills, as is the inn and the filling station, and these would undoubtedly be improved by the landscaping suggested by Mr. and Mrs. Berry.

Mr. and Mrs. Berry have met all the requirements of the Ministry, and a further application will be put forward giving the site an access on to a by-road on the south side of the petrol filling station. It is difficult to see why the Ministry of Transport has dug its toes in so much over this application, as Mr. and Mrs. Berry have done everything that the local planning authority has asked for.

I hope that the Minister will take a more reasonable attitude towards this site. They were asked to set the entrance back on the road by about 15 yards, and this they did. They were asked to install a children's playground, and this they also did. In fact they have met every requirement put forward by the local planning authority.

This is not of great commercial interest to Mr. and Mrs. Berry. It is very much a matter of principle, and I think that the Minister should recognise this. Each week these large articulated vehicles come down the A.19 from Teesside. It is impossible for the petrol vehicles and the brewery lorries to go past with their loads. They all call in, and there they create a much greater traffic hazard. There are at least three brewery wagons a week, and more than three articulated petrol lorries.

We are talking in terms of one caravan, or possibly two or three, coming into a site on the A.19 once a year. It is almost impossible to understand why the Ministry has taken such a stand on such a small matter as a traffic hazard. Every suggestion put forward by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with regard to planning has been met by the occupants of this caravan site, and I very much hope that the Minister will push aside the red tape in this case. I hope that he will give the matter further consideration and see that these people get a fair deal on what is for them a very minor matter financially, but very much a matter of principle about which they feel they are being treated very badly by the Ministry.

1.48 a.m.

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

Before I come to some of the points of substance mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) I want to make a brief reference to two quasilegal points, because I think it right that these should be put on the record as soon as possible.

First, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I gather that Mrs. Berry is considering a further application for permission. I therefore want to be very careful about anything I say so that it cannot be used in subsequent proceedings in a way which might appear to be to the advantage of one party or another. This is not to say that the proceedings in Parliament can be inhibited by a process that may be taking place elsewhere, but, as anything that we say here can be quoted, I am naturally anxious, that nothing I say should have any consequences which might not seem to be quite proper if there are further proceedings in this matter. To some extent that inhibits me in my reply.

There is a good deal that I should like to say about this case in view of the reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has referred to the matter, but there is a second fact which I should get on the record quite early, and it is this: When the Minister has given his decision in a planning appeal his function is finished. He has no power to reopen the matter for the obvious reason that there must come a time when a decision becomes a reality. One cannot keep on going back on a decision and having another decision; otherwise, one would never move.

So, even if I thought it were right to do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested in asking that my right hon. Friend the Minister should look at the matter again, he has no power to do so. If matters should come before him again as a result of a second appeal, he is entirely free to make his decision on the merits of that case. I say that in case the hon. Member thinks I am churlish in saying that I cannot recommend the Minister to look at the matter again.

I begin the main burden of what I have to say by pointing out that what the Minister did in this case was to investigate a decision, which was the subject of appeal, by the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council. It was not a decision that the Minister took. It is a decision that the appropriate local authority, the county council, took.

The county council refused permission for the development on three grounds. Two of them were traffic grounds and the third one was that the establishment of a caravan site in that prominent place alongside the principal trunk road was considered detrimental and likely to prejudice the amenities of the open area.

The Ministry of Transport was brought into the matter because under Article 9 of the Town and Country Pluming (General Development) Order. 1963 if the site is within 220 feet of a trunk road the local planning authority is obliged—it does not have any discretion—to consult the divisional road engineer for his comments. This was done, with the result that the engineer, who gave his evidence at the inquiry in very precise terms, did so in regard to the trunk road aspects of the matter.

It is true that Mrs. Berry was granted permission for the stationing of six caravans on the site from 1st April to 30th September each year, and that was given in December, 1960, for a five-year period, and two spaces were to be reserved for touring caravans. She was granted a further permission in March. 1966 to extend the period to 30th September, 1967, when 10 caravans were permitted, but when she applied to extend the permission she received notice of refusal.

I would point out that in 1955 permission was refused by the direction of the Minister of Transport for a caravan site at the south end of the field because it was felt that the combined access to the caravan site and the filling station would not be in the interests of safety and the convenience of traffic entering or leaving the trunk road.

The local planning authority said at the inquiry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this better than I do, although I know the road to some extent—that the A.19 was becoming an important and very busy principal trunk route with the expansion of Teesside and that the county council wanted travellers on it to have a safe and visually satisfying journey. The site was fairly conspicuous for about 800 yards to the north and 525 yards to the south, and the council held that it detracted from the very pleasing panoramic view of the Cleveland Hills about 1½ miles away inside the North York Moors National Park.

I should point out that the site can be seen from the long distance footpath and from other points on the eastern escarpment of the Cleveland Hills. I shall have a chance of looking at this site when I go to open the path formally in a few weeks' time. The council's point, in addition to the reasons that I have given, was that it did not want to consolidate the commercial development at this point, by allowing the caravan site to become permanent or possibly to grow larger. I pointed out that the provisions in the past were temporary and not permanent.

The divisional road engineer's evidence to the inquiry is very material on this point. He stressed the importance of the A.19. He said that the scheme for making a first-class dual carriageway connection with the Midlands and the South was progressing. The Ministry of Transport aims to make this improved road as free from unnecessary access as possible. Work on all sections of the road is due to be started by 1970 and some improved sections are already in use. The section passing the appeal site was nearly completed at the date of the inquiry in January of this year. The road engineer further argued at the inquiry that the road conditions had changed materially since the earlier temporary applications were granted. The existing caravan site and the petrol filling station were close to the road junction and this would constitute one of the few major traffic hazards left on this route.

That is the view of the road engineer. Consequently, his evidence was, and the Ministry of Transport's position is, that they are very much opposed to the continuation of this use as it will be detrimental to the improved trunk road. They further hold that the presence of a gap in the central reservation opposite the junction of the Ingleby Arncliffe Road and the bridle road running along the southern boundary of the site would enable southbound vehicles on the trunk road to make a right turn into the bridle road.

Towed vehicles would have to make a right turn from the southbound carriageway through the break in the central reservation, and those vehicles would also have to make another right turn to rejoin the southbound traffic stream. If the access proposed in the application were used, southbound traffic would have to make a U-turn to enter it. This could be overcome by providing an access to the site from the bridle road, but that point was not raised at the inquiry, and the inspector does not comment on it for that reason. The present speed restriction is 50 m.p.h., but this will be increased when the road is improved.

That was very strong and definite evidence from the traffic engineer which was put before the inspector and upon which he commented in his report which came before the Minister.

Mr. Kitson

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but surely he must recognise that in 1967 only one caravan left the site and in 1968 only one caravan left the site. During the weekend, when I went to see Mr. and Mrs. Berry, a caravan rally was being held at Crathorne Hall, 5 miles up the road; 20 caravans called at the filling station and came into the same access as the Ministry of Transport is objecting to.

As to the amenity aspect of the area, this caravan site has been there for seven years and the planning authority has not objected to the site from the amenity point of view. The authority has not said that it is an eyesore. This is just an added runner at this stage in the proceedings. Quite rightly, Mr. and Mrs. Berry feel that as the authority has allowed it since 1960, suddenly to say that it is now an eyesore is grossly unfair. I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point that only one or possibly two caravans have been coming to the site each year.

Mr. Skeffington

I accept that what the hon. Gentleman says as to the facts. But the point is that in 1955 permission was refused at the direction of the Ministry of Transport for a caravan site at the south end of the field because it was felt that, at this point, access even then would not be in the interest of safety and convenience and the divisional engineer's evidence is that the importance of the road is changing and greater traffic will be using it.

I have seen the photographs of the road now, both at this stage and as it was a few years ago. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the divisional engineer's evidence was on the possibilities in the future if this were to be the permanent position.

I turn now to the amenity point of view. I do not think that the local planning authority was called upon to say much about amenity when it was merely giving temporary permissions on a year-to-year basis. Now, in view of the situation which has developed and the opening of the long distance footway, the case for amenity was strongly argued by the authority at the inquiry.

At the inquiry, the applicant, who was represented by counsel, said that the access was safe before the road improvements started. It looks to me as if her case was that if there was any difficulty it was caused by the design of the road improvements rather than to any hazard which might arise from the access.

The inspector heard the evidence and visited the site and I emphasise that this was not a case of a Minister in Whitehall coming to a decision unaided. It was a decision of the local planning authority upon which there was an investigation. In paragraph 26 of his report, the inspector said: I should not expect the caravans and any cars which might adjoin them could be clearly visible at a distance of 2 miles, but they would increase the mass of the inn and the petrol filling station, and they would make the existing intrusion in the landscape more obvious. I have noted that the immediate surroundings of the site are not in the area of great landscape value, but it seems essential to me that the view from the long-distance footpath should be spoilt as little as possible. The same considerations apply to the appearance of the land to the west side from the trunk road where extension of the mass of existing commercial enterprises should be avoided. The application is therefoer unacceptable both for reasons of danger to traffic and because of the damage to the appearance of the area. In other words, the inspector, in addition to the traffic objection, upheld the case for amenity and consequently recommended that the appeal should be dismissed. When the matter came to my right hon. Friend, it was gone through carefully again, as is usual with planning appeals. The drawings, photographs and evidence were examined again. In view of the very strong evidence given by the road engineer, my right hon. Friend felt that he had no alternative but to agree with the recommendation of the inspector.

Mr. Kitson

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going up there in a few weeks' time to open the walk. I hope that we can then look at this matter together, because we can see it very well from there. We can consider the landscape problem, and go to see what is the problem at the filling station. I hope that he can agree to this.

Mr. Skeffington

So far as my programme allows, I shall be delighted. I do go to see sites from time to time. When I started doing so, some eyebrows were raised, but I do not think that I recommend my right hon. Friend to make a worse decision because I have seen for myself.

This point was taken up the other day in regard to a High Court judge who visited the scene of an accident. One of the points on appeal was whether or not he had acted properly. The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing improper, but that he should be careful to ensure that it was not thought that his action gave an advantage to one party at the expense of the other. So I should be glad to see the site, subject to the exigencies of time. There is another application, so it would be helpful if the matter should come before the Minister again.

But the practical objection is very strong. There is a desire, when roads are improved, to keep as much traffic as possible from entering them at other than specified points, which have been deliberately designed. If one adds to a busy road, with fast traffic and increasing numbers of vehicles, the hazard of traffic and caravans having to cross the road and—in one case, from the south—to make a U-turn, this is a serious traffic hazard which the road engineers are bound to consider. On that ground alone, my right hon. Friend had very little alternative.

I shall be able to go into the amenity matter further in due course, but the area of outstanding natural beauty comes quite close. There are these elevated trees and hills, from which I understand this little complex of buildings can be seen is another factor which my right hon. Friend has to take into account. Whatever decision we make in these cases, after careful consideration, is bound to displease someone, but we try to do the job as conscientiously as possible. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member that every factor was considered by the inspector and the Ministry.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock, a.m.