NEW TOWNS (INITIATION) BILL (Hansard, 27 February 1973)

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confine the initiating of new town projects to public development companies acting on Government authority. The Bill has been brought about by an example in my constituency in Southern Leicestershire, at a village called Catthorpe, about three years ago.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw quietly.

§ Mr. Farr
About three years ago a block of about 800 acres of land at Catthorpe was acquired by a developing company called Webco for the purpose of obtaining permission to build a new town. An ordinary agricultural price was paid for the land, which is in a remote part of the county, with no normal development value, as it is some miles away from the nearest town.
Not unnaturally, all the local planning authorities turned down the scheme. The greater part of the development is in Leicestershire, but part of the proposed new town will be in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. The three local planning authorities turned down the scheme to build a new town in this remote part of the country as it was an unsuitable site. Webco, the proposed developer, has appealed and the matter is now going through the normal planning procedure.
I shall not go into the merits of this application. My concern is for the suffering and distress of my constituents who live in and around the little village of Catthorpe. They do not know from one day to another what their future is to be. It is impossible for them to settle down and live their normal lives when at any moment they might be swamped by homes for up to 15,000 people which will be built around them. They have no security in maintaining and repairing their houses. Further, there is no security for those who work on the land in this area.
Moreover—and here I come to the purpose of my Bill—there is nothing to 1286 prevent them remaining in this position more or less indefinitely. WEBCO can see the prospect of changing a purchase of 800 acres at £400 an acre into an investment worth £10,000 an acre. With that substantial profit in mind there is no shadow of doubt that it is likely to make repeated applications. A succession of public inquiries are likely to be held unless consent is forthcoming.
The Bill endeavours in the public interest to lay down guide lines for developments of this nature by speculators. WEBCO has said that, if it is successful, this pilot effort will be the forerunner of repeated applications for new towns throughout the country.
New town projects of this size are too big and have too great a social consequence on the rest of the country. With the limited land that we have available, haphazard applications should no longer be left to speculative developers like WEBCO.
The Bill will provide a regulatory framework. It will require such developers, before proceeding through the normal planning channels, to approach a regional economic planning council to have the whole project vetted by the council. The council will vet the suitability of any project on the basis of national and regional requirements. Until the availability, for example, of employment, sewage services, water services, accessibility by road, lighting, heating, health and educational facilities has been satisfactorily vetted and passed by the regional economic planning council, an applicant will not be authorised to proceed through the normal planning channels.
The Bill will contain a clause to limit planning applications to construct a new town at certain places to once only. When a ministerial refusal has been given, such refusal would remain effective for 20 years. By that means I hope that those who live on speculators' sites will be given some peace. I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.