HC Deb 08 May 1969 vol 783 cc838-46

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

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlan (Gateshead, East)

I want to raise a matter which is causing many of my constituents great concern. The problems to which I wish to draw the attention of the House this evening are problems that I have raised many times before in correspondence with departmental Ministers, by personal representations, by Questions in this House, and in a previous Adjournment debate on 28th June, 1967, almost two years ago, and yet the problem remains.

For the sake of the record, I should explain that in May, 1966, a planning application was made by the firm of Wailes Dove (Bitumastic) Limited, the purpose of which was for the erection of a building to be used for the application of a protective covering to steel pipes and fittings. This building was to be within the curtilage of a site used for many years by a firm called Robert Bowran Limited, which manufactures paints and varnishes.

Planning permission was given and subsequently granted in August, 1966, by the Felling Urban District Council, acting on behalf of the planning authority, the Durham County Council. At that time the offensive nature of the operations proposed by the applicants was not apparent. When the factory became operational in September, 1966, immediate complaints were made by local people about emissions from the plant, and these complaints have persisted ever since.

The factory is situated in the centre of a good-class residential area, and in some cases is a mere 20 or 30 yards away from the nearest houses. From time to time, the whole area is pervaded by acrid smoke and smells, and there is irrefutable evidence of interior and exterior paintwork suffering considerable deterioration and damage because of the heavily polluted atmosphere. Garments hanging out to dry after being washed are being spattered with a tar-like substance that has fallen from the surrounding atmosphere.

It is little wonder that my constituents are gravely concerned and worried at the possible damaging effects on their health.

I said in my speech on 28th June, 1967, that these processes, being registrable under the Alkali Works, Etc., Regulations, 1906, should never have been carried out in close proximity to residential property. But once the factory was built and operational it was very difficult to deal with, and at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the officials of the Felling Urban District Council, especially the Public Health Inspector, and also to the Ministry's own Alkali Inspector, because they have been grappling constantly with a problem which is insoluble.

The firm too has been trying very hard to remove the causes of the complaints. It has made extensive alterations to the plant itself, and has installed some fresh equipment, but without success.

It is abundantly clear, I think, that no matter how much surveillance may be applied, and irrespective of any amount of new plant and equipment, the one and only solution is to transfer the factory to another site away from houses. Offensive smoke and fumes are inherent in this type of process. There is no escaping that fact.

I am not at all sure that the arrangements for dealing with planning applications involving registrable processes are satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), told me in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 17th December, 1968: Registrable processes are placed in a separate industrial group in the Use Classes Order, because of their special characteristics, to give local planning authorities effective control over their siting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 317–8.] If that is so, just how effective is that control? I find it very difficult to believe that if the planning application had shown clearly that the intended process might cause offence, as all registrable processes will, it would have been approved. I very much doubt that it made clear what the factory was to be used for.

Why not put the responsibility on the applicants to state specifically whether the premises are or are not to be used for registrable processes? I would like my hon. Friend to look at the regulations covering these circumstances, for it seems to me that there is a great need for a tightening up. I realise that that aspect of the matter does not affect the case I have in mind. But action of the kind I suggest could prevent a great deal of trouble and heart-ache for many people in the years to come.

When my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), replied to the previous debate that I opened on this subject on 28th June, 1967, he said that it was for the local planning authority to take the initiative and make a discontinuance order under the town and country planning laws to stop the firm from carrying out the offensive operations. Although I acquainted the local planning authority with my hon. Friend's views, I regret to say that almost two years later the discontinuance order has not been made. In the meantime, my constituents continue to suffer.

I readily appreciate the difficulties of the local planning authority. I am aware of the reasons why it does not press ahead vigorously with the order, although I do not agree with them. But I cannot and will not remain silent and let things drag on like this.

All the representations I have made to my hon. Friend have been received with sympathy and understanding. I recognise that it has all along been his wish that the firm and the county council should enter into a voluntary agreement for the resiting of the factory at a more suitable location. But these discussions have been going on for a long time, and no agreement has been reached. The time has now come for my hon. Friend to lay down a fairly short time limit to enable the county council to make one final effort to reach agreement. If it is not reached at the end of the period, he must invoke his reserve powers and seek the revocation of the planning approval. There is no alternative way out. In the circumstances, I believe that the proposition I have made is both fair and reasonable and I look to my hon. Friend for action.

12.20 a.m.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) has pursued this matter on behalf of his constituents with very great and praiseworthy persistence. Although he has many other claims to fame in Gateshead and in this House, I tend to associate him with the undoubted hardship which a number of his constituents have suffered ever since this process in the factory was established in 1966. No one could have done more locally with the local authority or with my Department than he has to try to get a just solution.

My hon. Friend made the point that had the planning authority fully understood when the application came before it what was involved in the process at this factory it would not have granted permission. I think that that undoubtedly is the case. It assumed from what was contained on the application form, which was for . . application of protective covering to steel pipes and fittings 0… that this was an extended use of a similar sort of procedure which had been carried on in the old paint factory and therefore came within Class VIII of the Use Classes Order. I have told my hon. Friend previously that where there is a process which creates a nuisance by virtue of the escape of noxious or offensive gases the application falls to be dealt with under Class V, and I am certain, therefore, that, had the local planning authority known what was really to take place and what the process really was to be, it would not have given permission.

That is the unhappy position we have arrived at. Planning permission was given, the process started and the kind of conditions began to occur which my hon. Friend has described so graphically—droplets of bituminous deposits, smell, and sometimes noise as well, as he mentioned on a previous occasion. In these circumstances, what was the best remedy that could be afforded?

As a result of public protests and representations by my hon. Friend, the local planning authority decided to take formal proceedings against the company in the form of an enforcement notice served in October 1967 on the ground that what the company was doing was outside the terms of its planning permission. Subsequently this enforcement action was dropped, and I assume that it was dropped on the legal advice that planning permission had been given with-in the terms of the application. Although the application was not precise, it contained the words about a process … of protective covering for steel pipes and fittings … It is uncertain whether the enforcement notice would have been successful.

But even if it were necessary to go ahead now with a discontinuance order, either made by the local authority or by the Minister, it would still be a lengthy process. I have the calculations before me of the time which might well elapse. Even if action were, say, taken next week and the order were unopposed, it might well take six to nine months. If the order were opposed, the quickest period would be 11 months and it might take as long as 14 months.

If there is an alternative solution, it is preferable to try it, (a) because it is doubtful whether the firm would be held to have breached the conditions, and (b), even if one did persist in that way, there is the difficulty of a further fairly lengthy period during which my hon. Friend's constituents would have to put up with, perhaps not all the inconvenience they have had, because as a result of what the firm has done and because of what the Alkali Inspectorate has done the nuisance has been reduced.

Nevertheless there is no doubt that this process is too close to normal homes. There is one other way in which the matter might have been dealt with, and that is by a discontinuance order under Section 28 of the 1962 Act. If such an order is served and is held that a valid planning permission has been given, then the authority would be faced with quite heavy compensation. That means that the ratepayers of my hon. Friend's constituency and other ratepayers in the county might be involved in the payment of a sum of probably not less than £100,000—it might be more. Again the process before there could be completion of this procedure might be a long one.

This is a matter which had to be taken account of by the authorities, and even my right hon. Friend if he made the order, which he can do, although he very rarely uses the power—it is much better used by the local authorities—compensation would still have to be paid by the local people. Consequently this is a factor which cannot be lightly turned aside, although it must not dominate the issue.

I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to those who have been seeking a solution, the officers of the Felling local authority and the county and also the Alkali Inspectorate. Once the Inspectorate knew what was happening—it was not registered until 1967 but operations started in 1966—it has been most thorough in keeping a constant watch and obtaining as far as possible some mitigation of the nuisance by the installation of specialised machinery. Looking at the records, I find that in 1966, after establishment but before registration, it paid six visits, no less than 30 in 1967, 90 in 1968, and this year up to the beginning of May it made 22 visits. It has done all it can within its powers to affect what improvement is possible. It is in no doubt that this type of work ought not to be allowed so close to a residential area.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

Does this not suggest that the law is in a very unsatisfactory state? I have a case in my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting any amendment of the law, which is not in order on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. More

I only wanted to mention that I had a similar case in my constituency, of which either the Minister or his predecessor is aware. It seems very unsatisfactory that the planning committee should have given permission which produces the results that have put this burden on the Alkali Inspectorate.

Mr. Skeffington

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly in the past these matters have been even more unsatisfactory. We have made a number of changes in the 1968 Act which will be helpful. There are two points which should help my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend asked me whether the regulations were satisfactory in the sense that the planning authority obviously had not been aware of the full details of the procedure. The Durham County Council have instituted a new procedure designed to ensure that what happened here will not happen in future anywhere else in the county. This is encouraging, although it does not get my hon. Friend out of his difficulty or remove the grievance of his constituents.

The question of a discontinuance order is difficult because of compensation, and an enforcement notice is also difficult. We have taken the view, although it has taken a long time to get to this point, that the easiest way would be for the local authority to come to an agreement, with financial assistance, to get a voluntary solution. I am sorry that this matter has dragged on, but I can now give my hon. Friend some encouraging news.

The county council officers were instructed to pursue the possibility of a voluntary solution with a promise of some financial assistance towards the company's costs. They have recently agreed with the company on an alternative site free of these difficulties, and have established with the company the kind of financial help sought. These negotiations have now gone some way; we are not just hoping; something is happening.

Subsequently sub-committees of the county council and the Felling Urban District Council have considered the case. Its conclusions and recommendations are now subject to ratification by the two councils, and I do not think that any difficulties will arise. A formal report will be made at the meeting of the county planning committee of the county council on 15th May, and I hope that there will be conclusive results. A recommendation will be made that this plan should come into effect and that the clerk should be authorised to open formal negotiations. The preliminary work has all been done. The recent petition of the Felling residents will also be reported at that meeting. As a result of the activities of my hon. Friend and of local residents we are now within sight of a solution. An acceptable site has been found, and if this solution comes about it will be in no small part due to the activities of my hon. Friend inside and outside the House.

I hope, as a result of this case and the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that planning authorities under the procedures of the new Act will in future be given more information in the applications that they receive, so that adequate provision may be made or permission refused if noxious processes are involved. This has been an unhappy case, and I hope that the news I have given will go a little way to lighten the feelings of my hon. Friend and of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.