HC Deb 23 April 1971 vol 815 cc1599-606

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

4.6 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I wish to draw to the attention of the House an issue involving planning permission granted by the Planning Committee of the London Borough of Ealing which could have serious and deleterious effects on many of my constituents resident in the Perivale area of Greenford. The planning permission involves land east of Rockware Avenue, a triangle of land bounded by railway lines, on which the developers intend to construct an estate road and to erect three warehouse buildings. This would have a deleterious effect on the residents in Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent. Near Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent there is already a main line railway and a London Transport railway. The grant of planning permission will mean that this little oasis of peace and quiet will be destroyed.

Previous planning applications for this land were made in 1964, 1965 and 1967, but they all came to nought. Regrettably, on 18th November, 1970, the Planning Committee of the London Borough of Ealing resuscitated this matter and granted permission for the construction of warehouses on the land I have described. The decision was a majority decision—by no means unanimous.

With the construction of warehouses and an estate road there will be heavy traffic, noise, vibration and all the disturbances which are associated with heavy and light industry. This is a most glaring example of lack of intelligent and sensible planning, insensitive to the feelings of local people.

The triangle of land is owned by British Railways. When the local residents, particularly those of Conway Crescent and Bennetts Avenue, voiced their protests, they were told by the Council, whose leader has informed me personally, that because of the threat by British Railways to use this triangle of land as a ballast depôt the Council had no option but to go for the lesser evil and to give permission for the construction of three warehouses.

In consequence, I contacted the Chairman of British Railways, Mr. Todd, and to my amazement I was informed by him that British Railways know nothing about any intention to build a ballast depôt on this triangle of land. This is a serious matter. Those who made that proposition about British Railways' probable intentions probably did so in good faith; but, as British Railways had not entertained this idea, I submit that planning permission was granted under the excuse of a threat which did not exist. If for no other reason than this, the whole business must be investigated thoroughly. British Railways are irritated and annoyed.

I pay tribute to Mr. Todd and his colleagues, who have examined this matter in great depth. I have seen them in their Paddington offices. They have been to the House to discuss the matter with me. They have examined all their records to ensure that what they have told me is the truth so far as they can ascertain it. They still maintain that they have not made any assertion or threat that the land would be used by them as a ballast depôt.

If there were no intention to use the land as a ballast depôt, there must be an investigation, because it was this imaginary threat which had some influence with the planning committee. If the planning committee were persuaded, on a wrong basis, to grant permission because it would be the lesser of two evils, the machinery of government and administration will be grievously stained.

This little oasis of land lies in the heart of a considerable industrial area. Within half a mile of this little residential oasis there are factories and light engineering companies making products ranging from sewing silks, heating appliances, cardboard tubes, babies baths, bottles, wallpaper, bookbinders, foodstuffs, cigarette packaging, thermos flasks, drugs, medicines, metal containers and paints. In addition to all these, within half a mile of this area there are great firms which are household names, such as Hoover, Glaxo, Lyons, Sandersons, and Rockware Glass —all within a stone's throw of this little area. Surely, therefore, this area of Greenford in Middlesex is making an excellent contribution industrially to the requirements of the nation. This further invasion by industry, with all its pollution threats, is unnecessary.

In addition to all these industries within half a mile of Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent, running within a few hundred yards of these quiet little streets are Great Western Avenue and Green-ford Road, and there is enough nuisance and interruption from these two great roads. They are important roads and there is a constant flow of traffic. Around the area of Conway Crescent and Bennetts Avenue are over 100 firms, large and small. It is remarkable that this small residential area is in the middle of all this industry, which has grown up around it, and maintains a residential aura. Less than 30 or 40 years ago that part of Greenford was almost rural. This large growth of industry has occurred in the past three or four decades. There has been enough industrial expansion in this area and the time has come to say, "Stop—no more."

I declare an interest, because the folk of Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent are not only my constituents but are almost my neighbours. I live only a few hundred yards from them. The street in which I live is not so grievously affected. But if these warehouses were constructed, that would mean all the ugly things which I have mentioned and which we have to put up with in our industrial areas—such as heavy transport, noise, pollution and so on—being increased unnecessarily.

As Greenford has made more than its contribution industrially, we ought to preserve this little oasis of land. It is remarkable how much wild life can be be seen in this tiny area around those residential streets.

I ask the Minister to conduct an inquiry regarding the issue, a propos British Railways and the Council, and to give back to the folk of Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent the peace of mind which they have lost since last November because of this threat hanging over them.

I had no hesitation in seeking an Adjournment debate on this matter. I appreciate that in the context of our national affairs, this issue may seem small and, to some, even insignificant. I assure the House that, in the eyes of the ordinary people of Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent, it is a veritable sword of Damocles that hangs like an evil threat invading their homes and their peace of mind.

I bring the matter to the House because Parliamentary democracy is essentially Government by discussion. Parliament is not above the battle. It is the most formidable weapon which ordinary people have in their struggle to defend their hearth and home from threats such as this regarding this planning permission. People will have no use for an institution like this House which claims supreme power but does not use it.

I ask the Minister, therefore, to use his powers to direct Ealing Council to make an Order revoking this planning permission, and thus to remove a menace which is already blighting the lives of my constituents who live in Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent.

4.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)

I want first to pay tribute to the eloquent and passionate advocacy of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on what is essentially a local matter concerned with the problems arising from the planning permission granted in respect of Bennetts Avenue and Conway Crescent.

The House will want to know that the planning permission was granted in November, 1970, and is an outline permission for the erection of three warehouses on the site.

I had some difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument in that there is an apparent conflict between his first description of "an oasis of peace and quiet" and what he said later about the long list of firms within a stone's throw of the site. He said that there are over a hundred in the area, and he referred to a number of household names. It is quite true that there are these very impressive firms immediately adjoining the site in some cases. It is also true that the site is triangular. In fact, it is surrounded on its three sides by railway lines and is completely cut off by them. As one of the necessities of developing the site, it is essential to provide access by means of a tunnel under one of the railway lines. At the moment, of course, there is no development on the site.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the purpose of this House and referred to "government by discussion". One point that he will appreciate is that in this case the local council has far exceeded its statutory obligations by discussing with local residents its plans and going as far as could reasonably be expected to have a degree of public participation in its discussions. I do not suggest that everyone is happy about the decision, but there is no question of local people not being fully aware of the implications of the decision. In fact, they have been consulted by the local authority, which certainly deserves our gratitude for that. Furthermore, local councillors visited the site before a decision was made. Every attempt has been made locally to ventilate the issues involved.

Mr. Molloy

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the statutory drill required of the council has been gone through, the usual forms were sent out and the objections of residents were sought. However, I asked the leader of the council to meet representatives of these people who, after all, do not receive forms every five minutes asking for their objections to intricate planning issues. I wanted him to talk to them in the earthy language of ordinary people and to discuss with them what they considered to be the threat to their homes. Regrettably, this was not done.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman must give more credit to the council than that. It went further than it is compelled to do statutorily in consulting local people. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman's request was granted, there is no doubt that the council went a considerable distance, following the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to see that consultations took place.

It is also true that, in granting permission, the council bore in mind the representations made to it. It laid down as a condition that certain screening by way of tree planting should be done to give some protection to people living in the neighbouring residential areas.

It is also important to remember that this is not a new subject. On the develop- ment plan it is scheduled as being, "for the purposes of the railway". Obviously nobody could have considered that the railway would use the land for building more railway lines. It would be difficult to have more railway lines in this area. So, "for the purposes of the railway" must be for the ancillary purposes of the railway, which must include the possibility of some building for some kind of industrial or quasi-industrial activity. In these circumstances, the council did not consider that the planning permission requested was a substantial departure from the development plan.

This is not the first time that this matter has been the subject of local discussion and controversy. There was an application for development of this land in 1965 which was referred to the then Minister of Housing for his consideration to decide whether to call it in as a matter of substantial departure. The then Minister of Housing decided that this was essentially a local matter and he did not want to call it in. It is reasonable, therefore, that the local authority should have in mind that a Minister has considered the matter from a national point of view and has decided that development, broadly on the lines we are talking about today, in no way infringed the development plan and was not a matter for the national Government to consider.

That is why, when the second application took place in 1967, the matter was not referred to the Minister as being a substantial departure. Again, we have an application, and it is the view of the Secretary of State that the position is still as it was in 1965 and in 1967.

Mr. Molloy

With respect, the 1964 application was rejected by the council itself. The planning permissions which we are now discussing are not precisely the same. As I have said, they died because of a variety of reasons. Therefore, that was a satisfactory answer for my constituents. However, it has been resuscitated in another, not identical, form, although it is just as much a threat.

Mr. Heseltine

I accept that no successive planning permission is on all fours with previous applications. Times and needs change. However, there is no difference in principle between the planning permission which we are considering for the warehouses and the outline applications which were made in 1965 and in 1967. The same kind of issues were at stake. The issues of principle were, in our view, sufficiently discharged in 1965 not to require any resurrection at this moment.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned the involvement of senior officials of British Railways and the apparent interpretation of certain information presented by the hon. Gentleman whether British Railways had or had not made suggestions how they would use the land. The council will presumably read and take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said today. I think that this is essentially a matter for the council at this stage. It would not be right that the Secretary of State should become involved in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

We believe that no issue of principle has been raised which has not been adequately considered in the past. This is a matter for local planning authorities to make up their minds about. The Department is determined not to infringe local decisions where it can be avoided. We do not agree that there is any justification in this case for intervention by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Molloy

I am not at all satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs leave to speak again.

Mr. Molloy

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave of the House to speak again.

As I said, I am not at all satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman has said. This is all nice and correct in a statutory manner, but ordinary people sincerely believe that if a wrong has been done they can have confidence in this House of Commons—that means in Her Majesty's Ministers—to make an investigation into what has occurred.

This is an extremely serious issue. British Rail takes grave exception to the London Borough of Ealing having used its good name to threaten some of my constituents. The council said that because British Rail might use the land, they had to agree and give consent to the alteration. The Minister says that one of the antagonists, the Borough of Ealing, shall be the referee. This is absurd. The Secretary of State should have an investigation. The planning committee was divided, and one of the deciding factors could have been the thought that this was the lesser of two evils. British Rail says that no such situation ever existed.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman said that he has in his possession certain facts which are relevant. These will now be fully available to those councillors who he says were misled, and it will be for them to decide what action to take.

Mr. Molloy

I am asking the Secretary of State to tell the council to examine it again, in case they are shy. If he will not use his powers to revoke the whole thing, he should give the council this instruction to hold full investigations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.