HC Deb 03 November 1970 vol 805 cc1045-54

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

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner (South Fylde)

I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late hour, of being able to raise for the consideration of this House a decision by the Government to allow the building, on the countryside at Samlesbury in my constituency, of what is likely to be the biggest brewery in the world. This is a decision with which I disagree, with which many hon. Members disagree, and with which many people outside disagree. The decision was made after a full public inquiry and after the inspector who conducted that inquiry had recommended that planning permission for the building of the brewery should be refused.

The grounds upon which the inspector recommended that planning permission should be refused were that, if this brewery were built, it would, to use his words, be a gross intrusion of industrial development in pleasant countryside; that it would be out of balance with a proposed new town; and that, in addition, it was his view—I submit a very significant and important view—that there was available for the building of this brewery an alternative site—

Mr. Michael McGuire (Ince)

In Skelmersdale, for one.

Mr. Gardner

In Skelmersdale, for one, and in Walton-le-Dale, for another.

I am not seeking to say that the Minister should not have a statutory right to override the decision of his inspector. I am saying that in this case the reasons for overriding the inspector's recommendations were not good reasons. I say that unless there are, in effect, overwhelming reasons to justify the decision of a Minister to override the inspector's recommendation, that recommendation should not be overridden.

In this case the reasons why the inspector's recommendation was overridden were not overwhelming. They were not even good reasons. In fact, I would say that they were bad reasons. One of the reasons—and it appears in the decision letter—and the first reason that the Minister raised as being a good ground for overriding the inspector's recommendation was that there were difficulties in finding an alternative site. I cannot agree with that, because there is one site to which the inspector referred—and there are others as well—and that is at Walton-le-Dale.

This brewery must have a site which has five physical characteristics. The alternative site at Walton-le-Dale has four, the missing one being the provision of sewerage facilities. These facilities—and I beg my hon. Friend to bear this in mind and to consider it—could be provided, and it would be a good commercial proposition for the brewery to provide them. It would involve the laying of a pipe about 10 miles long, and something similar has been done on another occasion.

It is said by the Minister that by building a brewery on this site employment will come to this area of Lancashire, but the brewery will employ only about 600 people, and before it is completed, or at about the same time as it is completed, if it is built, 1,800 employees at three other breweries will presumably lose their jobs, and the 600 people required for the new brewery can be expected to be recruited from those 1,800 employees.

The other reason why the Minister saw fit to override his inspector's recommendation was that this area of land is not green belt. I concede that that is right, but it is a very pleasant, tranquil rural area where people can live at peace and where they can escape from the strains of the industrial towns nearby. One cannot miss the land as one goes through the area. It is raised to a height of nearly 200 feet above the surrounding landscape, and it dominates the gateway to the Ribble Valley, one of the loveliest places in Lancashire.

The best news that I have had about the proposal to build the brewery there—it has come since I raised the matter at the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool—is that the brewers now say that if they continue with the building of this brewery the height of the chimney will be reduced from 120 feet to 70 feet, providing that the smell is not too bad. If it is, the height of the chimney will have to be increased to 80 feet.

The reason for the Minister's decision has a background which I think is disconcerting. The previous Government decided—and it was a disastrous decision—that this area of land should be designated as an intermediate development area. The logic of that was that when the brewers applied for an industrial development certificate they were granted it.

Then the Lancashire County Council, in the face of extremely strong local opposition from councils and local representatives of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, decided to support the proposal to build a brewery. It is as a result of the support given by the Lancashire County Council that I understand that the Minister has decided in turn to support the proposal.

The consequences of building a brewery in this area are not only serious; they will be expensive and permanent. The first of those consequences will be that heavy traffic will flow past the brewery, along what are now quite inadequate country lanes, flooding into main roads already saturated by traffic at peak hours. I cannot begin to guess—perhaps the Minister can help—what will be the cost of providing adequate roads in order to relieve the congestion that will undoubtedly build up if the brewery is developed.

The other consequence is obvious. We shall have a brewery on this elevated plateau, covering 55 acres. It will be there for everyone to see, unless there is some very skilful landscaping to conceal it. How it is possible to hide a building of these dimensions at that height, with the towers rising above the complex of industrial building, I do not know. The cost of this landscaping—and I hope that landscaping will be imposed as a condition—will be astronomical. I should like to know who will pay for it. Will it come out of a Government grant, or will the Government pay part of it, in order to conceal what I submit in all earnestness ought not to be there?

This is the place to make a protest. This is the place to ventilate the fears and the disquiet of people who live in this area and whose lives will be affected if the brewery is built. The question is: how does one make an effective protest? If a Member of this House were to get up and protest about this brewery at the time when the Minister's inspector was conducting the inquiry that protest would be sub judice. Similarly, after the inspector has recommended to his Minister a particular course of action or decision, I see it as improper for a Member of the House to try to debate with the Minister the arguments that can be relied upon for or against a particular decision. Only after the Minister has fulfilled his quasi-judicial function is one entitled to say to him, "This, in the view of people living in the area, is right", or wrong, as the case may be.

One hears—I hope wrongly—that this protest is too late, and that what I am now saying on behalf of the people living in Samlesbury and on behalf of all those people who are upset by this decision, is being said without any hope of effective action following upon this protest. If that be the case then we have to be concerned about these planning procedures. If that be the case, the law stands in need not only of review but of reform.

This situation in Samlesbury is analogous to the situation, though on a smaller scale, over Stansted. I ask my hon. Friend to consider even at this late stage looking again at this decision. There is a chorus of disapproval and a sincere and profound belief that this is a mistaken decision which should be put right. That is what I plead with my hon. Friend to start to do tonight.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington)

I should like to compliment the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) on the fight he has put up on behalf of his constituents and Lancashire people in general against this deplorable decision. Many of those who work in my constituency live in Samlesbury. I have not come across one who has not been passionately and violently opposed to this decision. The opposition comes not from a single political party but from people of all political views. I have tried to find one factor in this decision which could help North-East Lancashire. The sad truth is that not one extra job will be created there as a result.

The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity here, which seldom comes to anyone, to show that he was serious when he talked about conservation. I believe that he means what he says and I hope that he will show it, even at this late stage, by reversing this regrettable decision.

1.22 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)

I want first to make a general statement by quoting from a speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Countryside in 1970 Conference on 28th October: The protection of our countryside and the prevention of pollution are among the highest priorities of the 1970s and are essential for any decent sort of living. It is in that spirit that the Government will tackle the problems. He said earlier: The protection of our countryside, the avoidance of pollution and the striking of a right balance between the needs of conservation and development are now among the most important and difficult tasks of the Government. Secondly, I want to assure the House that the Government propose to put before the country a firm green belt policy. We propose to state clearly and in some detail the areas of green belt into which we shall not permit encroachment. For too many years, the proposals for green belts have lain in the Ministry unconfirmed. A very small minority have been granted the force of law by the Minister's approval. We propose to make certain where boundaries may be drawn and to announce those boundaries and to help to give form to them. This is something quite new in planning policy.

This case, raised on the Adjournment by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) has been falsely represented as a green belt case. The Municipal Journal, in referring to it, said: Reports in the national press … have readily accepted the argument—used by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which ought to know better—that this is sordid commercial intrusion into green-belt land and the Minister's decision has been interpreted as an ill omen on green belt policy under the new Minister. On both counts the criticism has been unfair for 'white land' is in no sense 'green belt' and the support for the decision has been much stronger than a lone Minister's decision.

Mr. Gardner

I was careful to state that this was not green belt land and the basis of my argument took into account that it was not.

Mr. Page

My hon. and learned Friend would not put forward this misrepresentation on which the case has been based in the Press against the Secretary of State, but it has been falsely represented by those who have used the phrase "encroachment into green belt", knowing well what an emotive phrase that is and intending it to be so. Not satisfied with that, they have linked themselves with statements in Private Eye accusing the Secretary of State of deciding this appeal on the basis of contributions made to the Conservative Party and even of putting money into his own pocket by this appeal.

This is a shocking case of scurrilous statements against a Minister trying to carry out his duties honourably and honestly. Not satisfied with that, accusations have been made against officials of my Department that they leaked to the Press the decision in this case before it was known publicly and that they leaked it to the developers and builders. Even this week, this scurrilous attack has been repeated on the Secretary of State and the Department. It has been pressed by the Vicar of Samlesbury in a letter to hon. Members.

May I inform the House that this is a village which has little wish to show its beauty of environment to members of the public, for it erects notices prohibiting the passage of anyone through the village unless they are residents.

The vicar said in that letter: We believe that the Minister's responsibility is to the nation rather than the brewery …. We can only presume that other pressures have influenced the Minister and those in authority". What does he mean by that and what does he expect Ministers and hon. Members of the House to mean by it? The vicarage was sold by private treaty to the brewery. This is a foul campaign against Ministers and officials trying to exercise the difficult duties which Parliament puts on them in carrying out planning law.

This area of 55 acres is at the Preston end of a six-mile strip of countryside between Preston and Blackburn, with beautiful countryside on either side in the valleys of the Ribble and Darwen with, to the north, the beautiful Forest of Bowland, covering hundreds of acres. But the site itself is an ordinary field to which the public, as far as I know, have had no access in the past, a field looking out across the M.6 to the built-up area of Preston and the immense chimneys of Courtauld's factory, and next door to the extensive area of the Blackburn sewerage works, a few hundred yards from an ugly paper mill and cut off completely from Samlesbury village by the A.59 road on which there is, very near, a garish modern pub.

This is a site within a couple of miles of massive aircraft hangars used for industrial purposes. By no stretch of imagination could this be called an area of outstanding natural beauty. I congratulate the campaigners on having worked up the case into a national issue, with the assistance of the scurrilous attack from Private Eye.

The site is in an area which the previous Minister's inspector said should be included with the central Lancashire new town. It is in an intermediate area created by the last Government, and that means an area which requires employment. It is a site for which an I.D.C. was granted by the previous Government, quite rightly, because it would bring 600 jobs into the intermediate area—and new jobs. These workers would not be recruited from the employees of the Salford and Liverpool breweries, which would be closed down as breweries as a result. Those people would not come from Salford or Liverpool to work in an area between Preston and Blackburn.

Although the site cannot be seen from Samlesbury village, it is true that it can be seen as one looks over the valley of the M.6 from the built-up suburbs of Preston. For this very reason, very strict landscaping conditions have been placed on the outline permission which has been granted. The inquiry and the Minister's decision related to outline planning permission only. Since then, the developers have accepted every single condition which they were asked to accept for landscaping by the Preston Rural District Council and by the Lancashire County Council; and they have now been granted detailed planning permission by the Lancashire County Council, as advised by the Preston Rural District Council.

Let me remind the House that some of the loudest and most unjustifiable and illogical abuse of my right hon. Friend the Minister has been that he has acted undemocratically by refusing to accept the recommendations of the appointed inspector. Undemocratically—when he, an elected Member of this House, has put his own conviction alongside that of the democratically elected local planning authority and the Lancashire County Council? How silly can argument get in support of a weak case?

Is there any strength in the argument that my right hon. Friend ought not to have rejected the inspector's recommendation? Inspectors are not judges of the High Court. The country is governed by Ministers, not by inspectors, and approximately two decisions of inspectors are rejected every week—and quite properly. If this were not so, Salmesbury itself would be within the designated new town.

Part of the campaign by the C.P.R.E. and others is that this site should have been at Skelmersdale or at Walton-le-Dale. Of course there would have been objections from the residents of either place if the decision had been to put it there. At Skelmersdale, instability due to mining subsidence made it quite impossible to put a brewery of this sort in this town—

Mr. McGuire

I thank the Minister for giving me some of his valuable time. Is he aware that my information is—and I am the Member for Ince, which includes Skelmersdale—that the negotiations to have the brewery at Skelmersdale were almost signed, sealed and delivered?

Mr. Page

I agree. It was found that the instability of the ground would not hold the sort of building which the brewery wished to put there.

As to the Walton-le-Dale site—this is an old trick which those of us who have been at inquiries for many years know very well. One produces a site at the last moment at the inquiry so that no one knows where it is. This site was not even identified to the inquiry. As far as one could tell, it was a site from which it would be necessary to traverse many miles of narrow lanes across a level crossing to get to the M6, and would require a 10-mile sewer pipe across the beautiful Ribble Valley.

Here are some positive benefits from this decision. In employment, it would provide 600 new jobs in an intermediate area; the people would not be recruited from those leaving the breweries in Salford and Liverpool. In improvement of the urban environment, it would mean closing two breweries as breweries in the centre of Salford and the centre of Liverpool, turning them into packing and distribution centres for the brewery, giving better working conditions to those who have to work in those buildings. In the prevention of pollution it would mean less pollution into the Irwell from Salford and into the Mersey from Liverpool, two of the most polluted rivers in the country, because at Salmesbury it would go into the sewage treatment plant next door to the brewery and would not pollute any rivers.

The area is a short distance from the M6. Traffic congestion from the brewery lorries within Salford and Liverpool would be relieved. The entrance to the brewery is only a few yards from the main road, the A59.

I assure the House that the Government's policy is conservation of the beauties of the countryside, but also of improving the environment of the town—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday 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 twenty-four minutes to Two o'clock.