HC Deb 12 June 1972 vol 838 cc1222-8

2.31 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

Even at this late hour I am most grateful for the opportunity of drawing attention to a matter of deep concern to my constituents of the Chigwell Urban District and which also touches the amenity of other parts of the country.

Chigwell was described by Charles Dickens as the greatest place on earth. Much of its beauty and that of my constituency has survived the outward growth of London because of the tenacious defence, both by local interests and by the City Corporation, of Epping Forest and because local authorities, local people, and central Government have maintained the metropolitan green belt.

I have a cottage at Curtis Mill Green in the Parish of Navestock, only about 15 miles from London. It is surrounded by agricultural land and woodland. Our next door neighbour, a retired farm worker, has very sensibly never been to London. For this state of affairs we have the green belt to thank.

It is not surprising that most of us wished the London-Cambridge motorway—M11—to be built through the Lea Valley and not, as was decided, through the Roding Valley. When Site 4 was chosen for a service area, local indigation was aroused; for, although Site 4 occupied part of the former Royal Air Force installation, it was on green belt land close to Chigwell Village, close to the excellent Buckhurst Hill County High School, with its fine playing fields, and to the Grange Farm camping and recreation centre which will soon, I hope, be receiving Catholic and Protestant children for a holiday and respite from Ulster horror, the subject of our earlier debate.

I obtained a local inquiry. This was non-statutory and was the very first of its kind. Many in Chigwell were disappointed that the inspector accepted a site south of the Loughton interchange in preference to one to the north. The inspector concluded that a service area at Site 4 would not so affect amenities as to justify consideration of another site. Both the inspector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who upheld him, were following the policy of placing service areas at intervals of about 12½ miles and to have the first developed site at the conurbation end of the motorway in question.

This policy has not always been precisely observed and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others hold strong views about it. I share their scepticism.

The local authority and I were deeply dissatisfied with the conduct of the inquiry. The Chigwell Council filed objection to the compulsory purchase order on Site 4 as landowner of part of it. We were nevertheless most grateful when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was not bound to do this, received a deputation I brought to him, consisting of Councillor Ian Beattie, a former chairman of the council and now Chairman of the Town Planning Committee, together with the clerk, the engineer, and the surveyor.

We voiced our complaints not just at the outcome but at the manner of the inspector's handling of the local inquiry. That, however, is water down the Roding. What was most welcome was the sympathetic and understanding attitude of my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, who had only just taken up his position, and the firm assurances that extensive engineering and landscaping would be undertaken to preserve the very precious amenities.

I should like to know how many service areas there are in green belt land in this country. In our case the development of the service area will leave a narrow wedge of green belt, and this must be preserved.

We have three other main anxieties. Ancillary development such as hotels and shopping precincts might be permitted, thus adding to the encroachment made by the service area upon the green belt. Second, the development of a service area on grounds of over-riding national policy might be regarded by private developers as a precedent elsewhere in the green belt. Our third concern is for the effect of any redevelopment by private enterprise on future schemes for creating what are called "green lungs" on the outskirts of the metropolis, such as the proposed Roding Valley redevelopment. I ask the Minister to make a public reassurance on these three points.

We are gratified that his Department is making the unusual provision of a vehicle bridge to meet the objection to the use of side roads for access to the service area. The Department of the Environment has proposed a close-boarded fence 2 metres high, and extensive planting to screen Buckhurst Hill school. In response to assurances we have already received officially from the Department, the Chigwell Council withdrew its objection to the compulsory purchase order and representatives of the council met officials of the Department recently to discuss landscaping and additional conservation measures.

Councillor Beattie, I read in the local Press, has spoken of a victory for the public at large". Many did not want the motorway. Few wanted the service area. Doubtless they wanted them somewhere else, but not near us. The Department builds highways but it is also the Department for the Environment. I believe it will be a victory for the Department and the country if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will state the assurances we have sought.

2.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for raising this extremely important point, important both to his constituents in the particular case he described, and important for general application throughout the country.

It might be helpful if I remind hon. Members of the policy and procedure respecting the provision of motorways and service areas which are an essential facility for motorway travellers. The line of a motorway is established only after the procedures in the Highways Acts 1959–71 have been carried out. Because they are cross-country through routes which endeavour to follow the most direct route, whilst avoiding urban areas, it is probably inevitable that some of them will pass through the green belt. Once the line is fixed sites for service areas are selected at intervals of about 25 miles with provision for the possible development of intermediate sites if necessary. If motorways pass through the green belt it follows that service areas also may have to be located in the green belt.

In consultation with the Department's engineers and with the independent Advisory Committee on the Landscape Treatment of Trunk Roads, likely sites are examined on each stretch of motorway on which a service area should be located. Once a preferred site is identified, the local planning authority is consulted under the procedure described in the Department's circular 80/1971. This may culminate in a local non-statutory inquiry.

Initially only alternate sites are developed, thereby providing facilities at intervals of about 25 miles. The infill sites are developed later, when increases in traffic make it necessary to provide more facilities. There is no hard and fast rule about having a motorway service area every 12½ miles. The distances between the sites are not inflexible. When there are sound amenity, geographical, traffic or engineering reasons suggesting variation, this is done within reasonable limits.

Consultation with the planning authority does not cease with the outline approval of the site to be developed. The Department invites tenders in open competition for the commercial development of the site, and tender offers must be in two parts—a financial offer and a layout and building design. The views of the planning authority on the way in which the development is to be carried out are very important, because the successful tenderer for the service area will have to obtain detailed planning approval for his buildings in the normal way as if the development were a private one. The Department, before making its final choice of the successful tender, asks the planning authority for its views on the design submitted, and these views are taken into account. In addition, a successful tenderer has to submit his scheme for approval to the Royal Fine Art Commission.

I know the fears expressed about the construction of motorway service areas in green belts. This is not an entirely new problem. Of the 25 service areas in operation, 10 are located in green belt, and a further three under construction are also in green belt. Two of the green belt sites are in the London Metropolitan green belt. The existing sites in green belts, beginning with those on the M1, are Scratchwood, in the London Borough of Barnet; Toddington, in Bedfordshire; the Watford Gap, in Northampton shire; Trowell, in Nottinghamshire; and Woolley Edge, in the West Riding. On the M4 there is Heston, in the London Borough of Hounslow. On the M5 there is Frankley, in Worcestershire; and on the M6 there is Corley, in Warwickshire, in my own constituency. Also on the M6 there are Keele, in Staffordshire, and Knutsford, in Cheshire. Under construction we have three sites in green belts—Gordano, in Somerset, on the M5; Birch, in Lancashire, on the M62, and Hartshead Moor, in the West Riding, also on the M62.

Some of the concern about service areas may arise because most people are better acquainted with the older service areas rather than the new ones. We have learned a great deal since the first were developed 12–13 years ago, and those now being built are much more attractive in their layout, landscaping and the general design of buildings, principally because more land has been taken. They are not nearly so cramped, and design standards have improved. Earlier service areas took about 10 acres, and those of us who use the M1know how cramped and crowded they are. Modern service areas serving the same sort of traffic take about 30 acres. Therefore, much higher standards of design are possible.

Where service areas are in a green belt we are very sensitive to the standards of design, and particular care is taken to ensure that the landscaping is carried out in such a way that the buildings—in fact, the whole development—fit satisfactorily into the surrounding countryside.

I can well appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the proposed service area at Chigwell, on the M11, within the Metropolitan green belt. I appreciate his comments about the deputation that came to see me a few weeks ago and the very useful discussions we had. I have given assurances to the urban district council that all practical steps will be taken to reduce the impact of the service area on the local environment. One side will in any case be in a deep cutting, and on the other I have agreed to construct an artificial embankment. In addition, tree planting and landscaping works will be undertaken, and the lighting will be designed with the amenities of the surrounding area very much in mind. Officers of my Department had a preliminary meeting with those of the Chigwell Urban District Council on 2nd June to discuss my proposals for the development of the service area and the implementation of the undertakings I gave to the Council. I was pleased to hear that they were successful and that broad agreement has been reached on the landscaping proposal.

I pay tribute to the constructive approach of my hon. Friend and of his urban district council. They have rightly been well representing their electors and local citizens in their dealings with the Department. They have, as I have said, taken a constructive approach to see that this development has the least impact on the surroundings and gives the best possible situation for the local citizens.

Although I fully understand the concern about possible effects of building service areas in green belt, I suggest that this is no reason for weakening our resolve to protect green belt anywhere against other forms of development. Although the Secretary of State has always made clear that he intends to maintain and even approve more green belts, he accepts that the provision of motorways serving the major conurbations may mean some sacrifice of green belt land. He also accepts that adequate service facilities must be provided in the interests of both the safety and the comfort of motorway users.

Since experience shows that the greatest need for these facilities is at the conurbation end of a motorway, the most appropriate site for the first service area on a motorway which passes through the green belt may well be in the green belt, and the provision of a service area in green belt is regarded as a special case because it is justified in the national interest. In view of the concern shown by hon. Members, local authorities and the general public, let me make it clear that it is not a precedent for other forms of development in the area which are incompatible with green belt policies.

I hope that this clear statement of our view of service areas will reassure my hon. Friend and all those others who have been worried that motorways or service areas mean the death knell of the green belt. I thank him for raising this important subject and giving me a chance to comment both on his constituency problem, which he has energetically represented to the Department, and on the more general problem, where I hope these views will be of interest to local authorities and local residents throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.