§ 10.38 p.m.
§ Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)It is, perhaps, appropriate that this debate is being held at a time when we have a new Minister, one who can wipe the slate clean in respect of a decision taken by his predecessor. What is perhaps singularly inappropriate is that the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), is not here to answer the debate. One would think that in the matter of a sporting facility he should be present to answer the debate.
The decision is an extraordinarily bad one and one which was made against the wishes of 3,000 residents who have signed petition forms. Over half of them have written personally to the Minister. It was made against the declared wishes of the Manchester Corporation as a whole. It ignored the advice of the National Sports Council and of Dr. Bannister in particular. Similarly, it chose to override the recommendations of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. As 175 Chairman of the North-West Sports Council for two years after its formation in 1966, I know that this decision is contrary to the spirit and intention of both Government and Sports Council policy. Not only do we need £350 million to be spent on sports facilities, as Dr. Bannister said, but there is in particular an insatiable demand for golf courses.
What is more, the decision was taken against the wishes of the three local councillors—Councillors Bowden and Risby on the Labour side and Councillor Goulding on the Conservative side—who have been working tirelessly to save this club and course. In the House, 40 Members from all parties have assured me and the club of their support—and I know that there are one or two in the House today—and so has Sir William Mather, the Chairman of the North-West Regional Economic Planning Council, and I shall have something to say about his views later.
It is an incomprehensible and perverse decision, a decision which goes against logic and common sense. What is most remarkable of all is that it overrides the Government inspector, Mr. Harrop. It is the kind of decision that must breed cynicism among ordinary people about our political process. If the word "corruption" is being bandied about by my constituents today it is no doubt without any foundation but it is because they just cannot understand how this decision, which is so obviously perverse, came to be made.
Mr. Horthy, the captain of the golf club, who is in the Gallery with 12 members of the club who came down the motorway especially for the debate, has said that the decision is acceptable to only four persons in the country, apart from the Minister. They are Mr. Roy Howarth, Mr. Ronald Williamson, Mr. Barry Hal pen and Mr. John Warburton, the directors of Greenside Development Company. It is possibly acceptable also to one other person, and that is Mr. Richard Marsh of British Railways. One understands his desire to sell railway land, notwithstanding that this will deprive a community of a valuable and unique asset and amenity.
But it is not just a golf course, it is also a social and recreational centre which has built up over the years, as I 176 saw at the annual dinner only last week. There is a spirit of friendliness and fellowship among people from all groups and walks of life and occupations that is so lacking in the soulless conurbations of today. That is going to be destroyed by this decision.
In Manchester alone there are acres and acres of railway land that are derelict and ugly. In my own constituency, not an advice bureau goes by without complaints of the Crumpsall coal concentrations in a railway siding, sitting like a miniature Rhondda Valley in the middle of a residential area, choking the air with coal dust, blotting out the landscape and disturbing the peace with 40 or so thundering juggernauts pouring through the narrow streets each day.
I say to Greenside Developments "Build if you will, but you will never be accepted in my constituency and you will never be forgiven if you buy that land. We will fight you and fight this decision." The land is not yet sold, and I strongly advise Greenside not to buy it, yet the prospective purchasers have purported, through their solicitors, to serve a notice to quit on the golf course. They have not bought the land, and they have no right so to do. I trust that the Minister will tell them that, and that the local authority will not stand idly by while private developers act in this cavalier way.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Sport, who is singularly absent tonight, has refused to meet the club and says that the decision cannot be reversed. He is the Minister for Sport presiding over the destruction of a sporting facility while posing as the champion of sport, and if he does not resign in protest at this decision it will show that for him the party is more important than sport. Some of us have shown by our actions in the past that we do not think that way. I remember strongly opposing the building of houses by my own party at Heaton Park and Boggart Hole Clough, notwithstanding that they would have made my constituency a safe Labour seat.
There is one escape. We have a new Minister. He is fresh from the balmy air of Brussels, where he had a notable success. He can start at the first hole on a home course and show that he has an open and fresh mind. If a previous Government, with a new Minister, could 177 make such a reversal of policy as there was over the Third London Airport at Stansted, this decision, as my hon Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said when we discussed this last night, can be reversed, notwithstanding the replies that I have had from the Minister's juniors, and in particular the somewhat tardy letter that I received last week from the Minister for Sport.
I warn the Government that the fight has only just begun. The Parliamentary Commissioner is to be asked to investigate. The ripples are going out. They have reached the Pikefold Golf Club close by, which is about to be closed because of motorway extension. Only today I received in the post a letter from the Werneth Golf Club, which lies on the Failsworth side of Oldham, saying that it regards this as a test case. The letter says:
Heaven knows, this area is already de-pressingly devoid of amenities and there is as much need for recreational facilities as there is for housing here. The fate of the Failsworth Golf Club could be a significant turning point for the future of the whole area. I wish you and the club every success in your endeavours to stem the tide.I turn to the argument that the remaining 28 acres of open space will remain open to the general public. There is nothing to prevent that even if the Minister alters his decision. The letter from the Ministry dated 12th September to Mr. Perry is based on a misconception. At least, the letter admits that the decision was finely balanced. But if it was finely balanced I demand to know what unbalanced the Minister, what tipped the balance against all the findings and against the Minister's own inspector? If it was so finely balanced, what was on the other side of the scales that no one here or in Manchester knows about? In this context the Minister's rather nebulous promise to take up the question of low-cost golf in the Manchester area is a bad joke. Where is that golf to be played—on the Coronation Street houses in Failsworth or Moston? Or will it be on the high-rise flats at Blackley? There must be land available to provide a golf course, and the tragedy is that it is intended to destroy an existing amenity that cannot be replaced. A golf course cannot be built like a garage. What is proposed is an act of unparalleled vandalism to 178 which I, as a representative of my constituents and as someone who has lived there all my life, take very strong exception.I take equal exception to the idea of building in the few parks in the area. Manchester needs to retain the land as green belt. It refused planning permission in the area. What amenities, I wonder, will Greenside Developments provide for the 300 members of the club on the social side and for the 150 playing members?
On what basis did the Minister disagree, since he has no knowledge of the area, to the findings of his inspector. The inspector said in his report:
In view of the evidence of need for more golf courses in the vicinity of Manchester I consider it desirable that the present use of the Failsworth golf course should continue. This would benefit the general public, in addition to club members, as the course is available for casual play on payment of a green fee, affords visual amenity to the neighbourhood and provides scope for walking as a general recreation. On balance, therefore, I consider that the golf course should be retained within the proposed open space in preference to allowing housing development on grounds of expediency.The inspector was right and succinct in his judgment, but what is the point of having a housing inspector at an inquiry if the Minister pays such scant regard to his findings when they are in accordance with the findings of everyone connected with the case. Since the Minister for Sport has publicly announced that there will be a need for 500 more golf courses by 1980, will he now admit that he made a mistake and that the need is for 501?It is ironical that simultaneously with Operation Eyesore the little green and pleasant land that we have among the mills of Moston, Failsworth and Old-ham is now to become an accretion to the concrete jungle of North-East Manchester, an area which is far less privileged than the south and the Cheshire side of the city.
In reply to a Question on 18th October, the Minister talked of "undisputed housing needs". If that be so, will he explain why he refused permission to build on a farm at Woodhouses in Fails-worth, Jericho Farm as it is known? The inspector had recommended that the land ought to be used for housing, but the Minister rejected that on the ground 179 that there was no need because there was sufficient land already available for housing. The two decisions just do not stand together. I gather that the reason is that he knew that there was adequate land for housing, because we all know in Manchester that it has been announced that its needs will be fulfilled by 1975.
It is no wonder, therefore, that many of my constituents are angry, resentful and embittered at this action. There is, above all, a sense of incredulity in the area.
I ask that the Minister should not commit himself tonight but will take the matter back and think about it. Let him send my dozen constituents home on the motorway a little happier than they might otherwise be, and let him make the 3,000 who signed the petition, who will see the news tomorrow in the Press with the photographs of the demonstration outside, a little happier. He must reconsider the decision. He ought to know that the nearest golf club within a direct bus journey is the Crompton and Royton club, a distance of five miles away, and the only municipal golf course is Heaton Park in my constituency and adjacent to the constituency of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst).
I ask the Minister to read the inquiry report again, as I did today. I shall not quote from it because of lack of time. In the view of the inquiry, the issue was not between building houses and a golf course; it was between a 9-hole and an 18-hole golf course. The inquiry finished up by saying that it is surely better to have half a cake than none at all. What the Ministry has done is extraordinary.
The matter has a long history. I first wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), then Minister for Sport, on 8th May, 1970. After that, it seemed that everything was safe, and we took matters for granted because no one in his wildest ravings or nightmares would believe that the Ministry could act in the way it has done. Now, with dismay and incredulity, we have learned of the Minister's decision.
Perhaps the most appropriate remarks on the matter were made by Sir William Mather, one of the best known and respected industrialists in the Manchester 180 area. He wrote to the Minister this week, and in his letter he dealt with the history of the club, founded in 1895, the oldest in the Manchester area, which lost nine of its holes to builders in 1927, and latterly has suffered from what is known as planning blight. He deals with the threat to the other two golf courses in the area, the Pike Fold 9-hole course and the Werneth course. He concludes by saying:
I appreciate how difficult it is to reverse a Ministerial decision, but I would hope that in this instance an exception could be made.That is the view of the Chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council.I echo Sir William's words in asking that the decision be reconsidered and reversed. I ask the Minister not to commit himself tonight but to recognise that a new Secretary of State has been appointed who will look at the matter again. An obviously bad decision has been made, the sort of decision which causes cynicism among ordinary people. Let him think about it, give no firm answer tonight, but study the evidence and give the new Secretary of State opportunity to study the matter afresh and make a new decision in the interests of amenity and the well being of the people of my constituency and of Manchester as a whole.
§ 10.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)I have a constituency interest in this issue. I support the formidable case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) for the preservation of the Failsworth Golf Club.
My constituents and I find the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment wholly inexplicable and deplorable. Will the Minister for Local Government and Development bear in mind that his right hon. Friend's decision reversed the decision of his own departmental inspector. Consequently, an amenity which cannot be replaced is in danger of being destroyed.
My hon. Friend has referred to the need for golfing facilities in the area of North Manchester. However, of equal importance is open space. There is a deficiency of open space in Manchester; there are 3.9 acres per thousand people in the Manchester area. The 45,000 181 people who enjoy the amenities of the area in which the Failsworth Golf course is situated live in a density of 3.1 acres per thousand people. Their facilities are even less than the overall deficiency for the Manchester area as a whole. That is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman should direct serious attention.
The inspector who conducted the public inquiry saw the golf course. The city council, which made the decision for the preservation of the golf club, also saw the course. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of my hon. Friend, delay a decision in the matter and find the time to visit the area and see the circumstances of which we complain. It is not a leafy glade in a semi-rural setting to which private builders have been denied access. It is nothing like that. It is a delightful residential but heavily urbanised area of North Manchester. Consequently, it is entitled to its golf course and to the space which so many people are denied.
§ 10.58 p.m.
§ The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)Failsworth golf course, which I know, is a private 9-hole course between Moston Exchange railway station and Moston Brook, within the north-east boundary of Manchester. It is owned by British Rail. The tenants are the Failsworth Golf Club, which has 198 members who pay a £15 a year membership fee. We are talking about 53 acres of land, of which 25 acres is the golf course and 28 acres consists of lower land, that is land next to the railway to the west of the golf course and land which slopes to the brook to the east of the golf course.
In November 1970 an application by Greenside Development Company Limited to build houses on the golf course—the 25 acres—was refused by the city council. The application included a provision for the remaining 28 acres to be left as open space. Greenside Development Company Limited appealed, and the appeal was heard at an inquiry in February and March this year. The open space for the 28 acres was not disputed or opposed in that appeal. No objection as to the effect on the housing on neighbouring land was put forward in the appeal. Urgent housing need in north 182 Manchester was not disputed and the sole issue on appeal was whether the need for open space land—in particular, the need for land for golfing use—outweighed the pressing need for land for housing development in north Manchester. The inspector found that north Manchester has a reasonable provision of open space and that open spaces will be increased by the city council's open space strategy.
§ Mr. PageNevertheless, the proposals for Moston Brook would be impaired if the appeal site were not included in that open space strategy while its use for golf would benefit the public both in visual amenity and in scope for casual walks. The Secretary of State took the view that greater weight should be given to the housing needs, mainly because, for private housing, they could not be met in any other way, while the open space needs could, at least partially, be met even in this proposed development by the open spaces of the 28 acres. The inspector found that the resident population of the city has been declining. I believe that we have already gone too far in forcing people to find their homes outside the boundaries of our great cities. To a great extent we are depopulating our cities; only those we herd into high-rise flats or uniform boxes can make their homes in the cities now.
At the inquiry the golf club representative said that there was this housing need in Manchester. The local planning authority said:
It is not disputed that there is a shortage of housing land in Manchester.The inspector found:There is a recognised shortage of housing land in the city ".Finally—
§ Mr. PageFinally, in his conclusion, the inspector said:
The need for more housing land is not disputed and it is apparent that available land in the northern segment of the city is now very limited.In face of that, the Secretary of State considered that the housing need outweighed the need for a golf course in that position.183 Setting what was said about the housing need against the need for open space and the need for facilities for golf, I must tell the House that the city council's open space strategy—to extend green fingers into the city—is very important. This development would leave some public space in the place the city has in mind as a green finger along Moston Brook. I cannot think that the remaining 25 acres are so crucial to the strategy of the city with its open spaces.
Most cities are hoping to achieve a standard of five acres of open space to a population of 1,000. In north Manchester at present it is far above that, with 7.9 acres per thousand population. When the Manchester city strategy is complete in 1981, the figure will be double the five acres of open space per thousand population; it will be ten acres of open space per thousand. It would be wrong to say that there is now, or will be in future, any shortage of open space at all. In fact, in north Manchester it will be far in excess of what one finds in other cities.
§ Mr. PageI am doing so. He says:
I therefore feel that, broadly, north Manchester is reasonably provided with open spaces especially when the further provision of the council's strategy is borne in mind.
§ Mr. PageI turn now to the question of the golfing facilities in the area. The Failsworth club has a membership of 198 and vacancies for another 100 members.
§ Mr. PageI am taking the statement of the club's representative at the inquiry. It is true that we shall be depriving 198 members of their favourite golf course but within easy reach there is a private course at Brookdale and 18-hole courses at Oldham, Blackley and Werneth, and they have all have vacancies. There are also two private 18-hole courses in Middleton with vacancies. The inspector found that:
Of five other golf courses within three miles of the site, two are likely to be required for road proposals and other development; there are nine more courses within a radius of five miles.184 It does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to say that there are insufficient golfing facilities in the area.
§ Mr. Roserose—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)Order. The hon. Gentleman has occupied a great proportion of the time available already.
§ Mr. PageI am taking the facts entirely from the evidence given, the findings of the inspector and his conclusions. He concluded that there was sufficient open space, but he came to the further conclusion that he thought it right that this finger of open space should be retained within the city council's open space strategy. What I am pointing out is that if the city council goes on with its strategy—it is perfectly entitled to do so—it will result in twice the amount of open space that we normally find in the cities and towns of this land. It cannot be an argument in this case that there is insufficient open space or that there are insufficient golfing facilities in the area.
But all the witnesses, the club representative, the local planning authority and the inspector found that there was a great housing need in North Manchester. It is for that reason my right hon. Friend decided that he must overrule his inspector's conclusions. This is not extraordinary in appeals. Indeed, it is the Secretary of State's duty to consider the appeal, the facts given in it, and the findings and conclusions of his inspector, and then consider his inspector's recommendations. If he decides that the findings and conclusions do not support what the inspector recommends, it is right that the Secretary of State should overrule his inspector. It is his duty to apply Government policy to recommendations which he receives from an inspector in these circumstances. He did so in this case. It is certainly Government policy to find the land for housing, and to find land of this sort for housing within the city confines.
§ Mr. Charles R. Morris rose—
§ Mr. PageIt is absolutely necessary that we should build more houses within the city, and that we should find land 185 for private development within the city. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley should have suggested that there was anything wrong about allowing a private developer to put in an application for planning permission and to succeed in that application [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did just that.
§ Mr. Charles R. MorrisWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, 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 eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.