CARAVAN SITE (HAINAULT LODGE) (Hansard, 6 July 1972)

§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)
I preface my remarks by saying that the area under discussion is part of my constituency at Dagenham although it is now in the borough of Redbridge and will be transferred to another constituency at the next General Election.
In 1967 the Greater London Council brought forward a proposal for building a caravan site mainly for the use of foreign visitors to London in Hainault Forest, in a primitive part of the forest which has never been reclaimed or destroyed and which is an area of great natural beauty. This proposal was defeated by the collaboration of various Members of Parliament for the area concerned and the idea was dropped.
Now another proposal has come forward from the Greater London Council to build a similar caravan site for foreign visitors to London nearby the original Hainault Forest site in an area called Hainault Lodge. This is a wooded piece of land at the top of a hill, one of the few wooded areas one comes across travelling from east London. It is 16 acres and it encloses a Victorian building and a modern house. This has been used for many years by Oldchurch Hospital as an annexe for old people. It is now surplus to requirements and has therefore passed to the Department of the Environment to decide what the future use of the site shall be. The GLC hopes to acquire it and to use it for the purpose of a caravan site. It hopes in this way to be able to by pass Parliament, which it had not been able to do on the earlier occasion.
The Department of the Environment owns the site. It is responsible for deciding what its future use shall be and it is responsible for the house, I am asking 1143 that it should not make it available to the Greater London Council for use as a caravan site but should consider other, more suitable, uses.
My main case against the use of the site for caravans is, first, on safety grounds. The main road, the B174, comes up from Dartford Tunnel and the industrial area of Dagenham to the north and connects with the A10 and All and what will be the M10. From the top of the hill down, the road is being put into dual carriageway. There is a great deal of industrial traffic using the road. It is a dangerous road for children living in the Hainault Estate on one side, who have to cross to the playing fields and the forest on the other. It is particularly dangerous because the proposed entrance to the site for caravans is from Forest Road. There is a T-junction where it meets the B174 just over the top of Hog Hill. Traffic comes up the hill at great speed and is suddenly confronted with the T-junction. If the proposal is accepted, then at this point there will be considerable numbers of foreign cars, particularly in the summer season, trying to keep to the left, with caravans in tow, and to turn off the road. It is at this particularly dangerous point from which they will try to turn off to enter the caravan site. That is one of the strongest arguments why the site should not be used for caravans.
The T-junction is also a point where horses cross the road in large numbers. The whole of the Hainault Forest area, part of which is forest but a good deal of which is taken up by a golf links and open country and so on, all belonging to the GLC, is used extensively for horse riding by young children. The horses are kept on the other side of the road and they cross at this point a good many times during the day. That is another hazard from the point of view of the use of this site for caravans.
I do not dispute that there is a need for more caravan sites for the use of foreign visitors visiting London. Anyone who has been abroad and seen the facilities there will agree with that. However, I suggest that this is not the best site for foreign visitors to London to put their caravans. Essex is already well provided with caravan sites in that area. I have a letter, dated 28th June, from the 1144 manager of the Grange Farm Camping and Sports Centre, in which he says: I would, however, dispute the strategy of locating a new site at Hainault Lodge. This would mean three sites, ourselves, Debden Green and Hainault Lodge, all in this North-East corner of the London approaches. The Caravan Club site at Abbey Wood is in the South-East. The imminent closure of the Crystal Palace site will leave a complete vacuum… in the centre of London and the whole of the western area of London. The letter continues: At the time of writing we are in daily touch with the London Tourist Board, at their request, to acquaint their Information Services as to availability of space. The situation, this very morning, is that the Crystal Palace site is full to capacity, with caravans so close together that they have difficulty in opening doors, whilst at this site —the Grange Farm camping site at Chigwell— we could absorb another 300 units in comfort. There is no immediate need for a caravan site in this area. If it is desired at a later date to have caravan sites provided to the east of London for people coming from the continent, the important point is that they will want facilities to get into central London easily. These facilities are not provided by the Hainault Forest site. The GLC should consider possible sites along the Ongar railway route, which the Department of the Environment is subsidising to keep open. Along that route, many coal yards are vacant or are about to become vacant which would provide ample space, with firm hard core bases, from which people could get into the centre of London by the railway. It would add to the receipts of the railway if the route were used by tourists to get into central London and back again.
There is a much stronger case for putting caravan sites to the north-west of London, where they can serve not only possible visitors from the continent but people from the provinces coming to visit London. That suggestion should be investigated by the Greater London Council.
There is a strong case for Hainault Lodge to be used for an old people's home, either by the Borough of Redbridge or by the Borough of Barking. The Borough of Barking was considering taking it over at an earlier stage 1145 before it was obtained by Oldchurch Hospital, but negotiations fell through. The house has already been used as an old people's home. There is ample room for rebuilding without spoiling the amenities, and it would not produce any of the dangers to the area which the proposed caravan site would produce. Access is fairly easy by bus, either from Ilford or from various parts of the Borough of Barking. There is a good bus service which stops at the entrance. Local communications are good, whereas they are not good for travel to central London, which is an important consideration for people from the continent who want to get into central London. Bus routes 62 and 247 come to the area from Dagenham and Barking, and these would provide good opportunities for visitors to old people if the site were so used. I hope that the Department will consider approaching the Redbridge Council or, failing that, the Barking Council to see whether the site could be used for that purpose. It seems a far more suitable purpose than that of a caravan site.

§ Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)
As this has not been a short sitting, I shall not detain the House for long. However, as Grange Farm, Debden Green and Ongar are all in my constituency, I should like to support the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). As the hon. Member said, we have been associated before in the defence of Hainault Forest. I hope that all hon. Members who live in that part of England, irrespective of party, will always be ready to work together in defence of our beauties and amenities.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has read out a letter from the manager of Grange Farm, so it is hardly necessary for me to say anything except to emphasise the point that there are spendid facilities at that site. That is all I need say, except to assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Dagenham has my full support.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)
I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) for raising this subject. I have also noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. 1146 Biggs-Davison). Perhaps I may start by telling the hon. Member for Dagenham the exact legal procedure regarding the ownership of the land. I thought of interrupting his speech but considered that would be discourteous. The hon. Gentleman appears to be under a misapprehension. The powers of my Department are extremely limited in this matter. Hainault Lodge is in the ownership of the Department of Health and Security. Under Treasury instructions, the Department of the Environment is a central agency for circulating Government Departments and local authorities with details of all spare Government land. It has no more standing than an estate agent. It does not own the land, the house, or anything on the land.
Hainault Lodge came to the Department of the Environment for processing. The Redbridge Borough Council, the Greater London Council and Government Departments were accordingly notified, so Redbridge has been notified. Only the GLC responded and the Department of Health and Social Security as the owning authority, was advised. It assumes responsibility for negotiating the sale terms and we in the Department of the Environment cannot express an opinion on the suitability of the proposed use. We merely act as an agency under the Treasury rules, and under those same rules the Department of Health and Social Security, or whatever Government Department is the owner, is obliged to negotiate with the body responding to the circular notice.
Part of the agency work which we do in these matters is to sort rival bids for Government land as between Departments, or in London, for instance, the competing claims of perhaps a local housing authority, the GLC and a Government Department. In general, Government Departments tend to have priority choice, but London housing use has special claims. As there is only one respondent in this case, obviously we put it in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security and that is why the negotiations are going on. We have no further locus in the matter in choosing one would-be buyer as opposed to another.
I understand that the GLC, having exercised its power to acquire this property, intends to lease the site to an exempted 1147 organisation for use as a caravan site. No planning application is involved because use of land for a caravan site by an exempted organisation for recreational purposes—and that is important—is permitted under Class XXII of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963. The exempted organisation would be the holder of a certificate granted under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, by the Secretary of State or his predecessor, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, exempting the organisation from the need to obtain a caravan site licence for the recreational use of a site for caravan purposes under the supervision of the organisation.
I stress the term "recreational use", because it is significant. By implication, it limits the use of the site to short-stay caravans as opposed to the permanent siting of caravans for residential use. I understand—and this is a matter for the Department concerned; we have no locus in it—that the GLC is concerned that the facilities available for short-stay caravanners in the London area are grossly inadequate compared with the facilities offered by other capital cities. The present level of provision is insufficient to meet current demands which are on the increase, particularly from foreign tourists. It also regards the provision of caravan sites as helping to relieve pressure from tourists for low-priced hotel and other residential accommodation in central London.
The hon. Member mentioned the Ongar rail route. This is a matter for the GLC. However, I understand that much of the route is outside the GLC area and no doubt that is something which it would have to bear in mind.
The GLC has no power to operate caravan sites itself, but it seeks opportunities to use its resources to purchase suitable sites, which it is trying to do in this case, for leasing to approved organisations. I understand that so far the council has not found it practicable to work to an overall strategy on the location of caravan sites because of the difficulty in finding suitable sites for acquisition by agreement. However, when deciding on the suitability of sites, strategic planning considerations are taken into account.
1148 The hon. Gentleman mentioned the traffic dangers, about which he was particularly worried. Romford Road is being dualled and improved. It is a Redbridge Borough Council principal road for which my Department is paying a 75 per cent. grant. Romford Road is a busy highway and there may be some traffic management problems. This is a matter for the local highway authority, but I understand that the access to the site will be from Forest Road and not Romford Road. No doubt the GLC will take that into consideration.
Turning to the amenity considerations. I am told that the site should be well screened by trees and therefore its obtrusion on the open countryside scene should be minimal. I understand that the GLC proposes, by way of the lease, to secure the retention of a substantial tree belt and special groups of trees. The Council hopes that this transit caravan site will be a model of its kind and perhaps worthy of a civic design award.
The only possible power which we have—I do not wish to be unhelpful, but this is the legal position—lies in the matter of an Article 4 direction. There are powers in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963, which enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a direction withdrawing a permission granted by the Order. But this is treated as a reserve power which, as a matter of policy, is very rarely used. In practice, Article 4 proceedings are initiated by the local planning authority which has to obtain the Secretary of State's approval before the direction becomes effective.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this development and his natural concern about the road traffic aspect. I do not know whether he has been in touch with the GLC. I have had discussions with the council. I do not wish in any way to pass the buck, but the GLC has the power and it is negotiating with the Department of Health and Social Security, which is the owner of the building.
As I have said, our standing in this matter is essentially that of an estate agent working under firmly laid down rules by the Treasury as to the bodies 1149 to which we can or cannot circulate details of spare Government land and buildings. The GLC has power under the various development Acts and orders to carry out this sort of development. Therefore, any questions or criticisms which the hon. Gentleman might wish to 1150 raise should properly be directed to the GLC and not to the Department of the Environment.