HC Deb 18 December 1975 vol 902 cc1919-28

5.4 a.m.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

Without any shadow of doubt the House will agree that this is an uncivilised hour, and I am indeed grateful to the Minister for being here to answer the debate. I hope that the nature of the hour will prompt him to respond to the proposals and views that I shall put forward.

My main purpose is to ask the Government whether they will introduce a comprehensive code of practice on planning matters relating specifically to Government organisations and agencies and nationalised industries. The reason is that there have been two serious mistakes by Government organisations in the last few months and years in my constituency. I want to take examples from both to show what went wrong.

The first is the example of the Washington gas pressure reducing station. It started in 1968, when the then Gas Board made a proposal for a gas pressure reducing station between the village of Washington and the All, with a view to making this part of the high-pressure gas grid system. The assurance was given by the Board that the construction would be underground except for a concrete cover of about 6 in above ground level, although it warned of the possible need, later on, to construct a boiler house. As things stood then, this plan came into the category of what is known as "permitted development by a statutory undertaker" on operational land under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act and the General Development Order. Because of this it was exempted from normal planning procedures.

Because of flooding problems, the Gas Board later produced a revised specification and decided that it was necessary to construct works above ground. It assumed that this was still permitted development. It seems that some confusion then arose and that the then planning authority—the Chanctonbury District Council—objected to the Gas Board's proposals, by which stage time was running out, because construction above ground was already going ahead.

The Gas Board responded and in August 1971 put in a planning application. But it was put in after the virtual completion of the construction of these works above ground. The local authority, for whatever reason—I suppose because it felt that it would be involved in the payment of considerable sums of compensation—decided to grant planning permission because it was faced with a fait accompli.

The result is that we now have a highly objectionable eyesore in an area of outstanding natural beauty adjacent to the South Downs Way. The environment in the area has been spoiled, to the detriment not just of the local community but of all those who enjoy walks on the South Downs Way. Inevitably, the distinguished Society of Sussex Downs-men made its representations and protests to me and others and at my request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration looked into the matter.

The Parliamentary Commissioner reported in Febuary 1975. One has to remember that his terms of reference allow him to look into maladministration by Government Departments but not by nationalised industries or planning authorities. Not surprisingly, he exonerated the Government Department but, in my view, by implication, he said that the blame for what happened must lie in other areas. By implication that must be the gas authority and possibly even the planning authority. Paragraph 18 of his report is significant. It says: The Department have communicated to me that the whole planning system depends on the assumption that the local planning authorities on the one hand, and the public and private developers on the other hand, will exercise their functions responsibly in accordance with procedures which have been laid down. There is evidence that the system faltered in this case. That is the important point of his con elusions.

The second case concerns Southlands Hospital, Shoreham-by-Sea. The area health authority produced plans to extend one of the ward blocks. People living in that area welcomed the plans, because any proposals to increase hospital facilities are in their interests. Government hospitals are defined as being built on Crown land, which is exempt from normal planning procedures. The developed was submitted by the health authorities to the then Shoreham Urban District Council in January 1973. However, a subsequent site survey led to an alteration in the dimensions of that plan and the new proposed block was about 16 ft. nearer the site boundary than was originally anticipated. The discrepancy between the original proposal and the altered dimensions was not properly brought to the attention of the local authority and the construction went ahead.

As a result, residents living nearby, particularly those living in Crown Road adjacent to the hospital, suffered a greater loss of amenity, a greater loss in the value of their properties and greater inconvenience than would otherwise have been the case. Mr. Cox, one of the residents in that road, said in a letter to me: We are not anti-hospital, but we are protesting strongly against the way the Government department has destroyed our privacy, our environment and the value of our property without consultation. In both these examples Government organisations went ahead with development plans which were subsequently altered to the detriment of the local community and without adequate consultation procedures.

Such mistakes and actions by Government organisations should never be allowed to happen again, either in my constituency or in any other part of the country. I am forced to conclude that the growing number of bureaucratic Government organisations, agencies, nationalised industries and bodies of one kind or another can—we see examples here—steam-roller their development plans through without adequately consulting those people who really matter—the people who live in the area.

I ask the Minister to find a way of ensuring that such mistakes never happen again. I can make only a few short recommendations to him. First, I suggest that he needs to review all the planning procedures related to Government organisations of one kind or another—and obviously, because of the two cases that I cited, I have in mind planning procedures relating to statutory undertakers, which include nationalised industries, and Crown land, which, I understand, includes certain Government Departments—with a view to discovering whether the procedures are adequate.

Secondly, I suggest that the Government produce a consolidated and comprehensive code of practice on planning matters related to all Government organisations—a code that is made available to local authorities and the public at large. I suspect and accept that the Minister will say that circulars are and have been issued by the Department of the Environment which are codes of practice, although they are purely advisory. I accept that many different circulars are issued. My argument is that those circulars are purely piecemeal, and that we need a consolidated and comprehensive code of practice which relates to all Government organisations.

That leads me to my third point, and the dilemma that we face. I seriously wonder whether the planning procedures relating to Government organisations as they exist at present need to be tightened up and in many respects made mandatory.

Fourthly, I ask the Government to ensure that there is more publicity and consultation by Government Departments when they go ahead with planning proposals.

I imagine that the Minister will also refer to the Dobry Report on the Development Control System which was produced earlier this year. That Report recommended a consolidated policy for guidance on planning procedures and greater publicity and consultation in the planning area. This, clearly, must apply as much to Government organisations as to private and other developers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you and the Minister this has undoubtedly been a long, hard night, but it will have been well spent if the Government are prepared to learn the lessons from the two crucial mistakes that have been made by Government bodies in my constituency. I ask the Minister to seek ways of ensuring that such mistakes never happen again.

5.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) has brought to the attention of the House a subject which is of interest not only to his constituents but to all those concerned with the working of the planning system.

The particular cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have already been the subject of quite a lot of correspondence between him and myself and my predecessor.

I shall deal with the two quite different developments that he mentioned in reverse order. The first is the development at Southlands Hospital, Shoreham. The two developments have been undertaken by quite separate bodies, for entirely different purposes.

The development at Southlands Hospital is a current case on which the regional health authority and the local planning authority are actively engaged in discussions. If they are unable to reach agreement on the form of the development, the matter may be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision on the planning issues.

At this stage, therefore, I would not wish to comment on the merits of the development at Southlands Hospital, but so far as the procedure is concerned, developments by Government Departments are dealt with by local planning authorities on the basis of the non-statutory consultation procedures outlined in DOE Circular 80/71. These procedures closely follow the statutory arrangements. In practice, these arrangements ensure that the majority of Crown development proposals are subjected to precisely the same consideration by local planning authorities as is equivalent private development.

These non-statutory arrangements are needed for Crown development in order to cater for the special situation and responsibilities of Government Departments for which Ministers are answerable in Parliament. For example, Circular 80 provides that the usual consultation procedures cannot fully apply to proposals involving national security.

However, most developments undertaken by Government Departments do not entail any security consideration and they are considered by local planning authorities in a similar way to any other development.

Circular 80 provides that before undertaking any development which would require planning permission if undertaken by any private developer, Government Departments will consult local planning authorities showing them all necessary details and plans of their proposals. If the local planning authority and the developing Department are unable to agree on a particular development, there is provision in Circular 80 for the matter to be referred to my Department for decision.

Any such case would be considered on its planning merits, in the same way as any appeal arising out of the corresponding statutory framework and a non-statutory local inquiry may be held. In giving planning clearance to Crown development, local planning authorities are able to express their clearance as subject to such conditions as they would impose on an equivalent planning permission outside a Government Department.

The procedures set out in Circular 80/71 were examined by Mr. George Dobry, Q.C. in his recent very far-ranging review of the development control system. This thorough and wide-ranging review did not point to any weaknesses in the arrangements for providing an effective control over development by the Crown but, instead, suggested that the provisions of Circular 80 should be kept in line with the statutory procedures. It is our intention that this should be done.

The hon. Member suggests that there are not enough teeth in the current consultation procedures, especially as regards publicity. It is true that Circular 80 does not contain provisions exactly corresponding to the enforcement procedures which are available under the statutory system. However, there is no need for such provisions, because Crown bodies have undertaken to obtain planning clearance from local planning authorities for all their appropriate developments. This means that the need for enforcement should never arise.

The gas pressure reducing station south of Washington was built for the South-Eastern Gas Board. It has been the subject of much correspondence between the hon. Member and Ministers of the present Government and of the former Administration, in whose time the development was carried out. It has also been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who reported in February this year.

As time is short, I shall not seek to describe in detail the planning system as it applies to statutory undertakers—of which the Gas Board is one. Briefly, statutory undertakers are subject to planning control under the town and country planning legislation in much the same way as private concerns. Generally speaking, they need to obtain express planning permission for their developments, whilst certain classes of development, known as permitted development, are covered by a general planning permission given by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order. Similarly, private industrial undertakings enjoy a comparable GDO permission.

The Gas Board's original proposals for its pressure-reducing station were probably permitted development under the GDO, as the station was intended to be underground. This seems to have been accepted by the then local planning authority. Nevertheless, the Gas Board still consulted the planning authority and interested amenity bodies, such as the Sussex Downsmen, about its proposals at the planning stage in 1968.

However, the subsequent alteration of its plans, for compelling technical reasons in order to avoid flooding of its installation, meant that its development needed specific planning permission. The Gas Board submitted an application in August 1971. It was then open to the local planning authority to refuse or grant permission. It would also have been open to it to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the offending development.

Mr. Luce

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the gas authority made that planning application construction of the works above ground had already gone ahead without the authority having obtained planning permission?

Mr. Oakes

I accept that, and it was wrong that that happened, but it would have been open to the planning authority to take enforcement action on the development that had taken place above ground had it chosen to do so. In fact, the local planning authority decided to grant planning permission in October 1972, subject to conditions requiring a landscaping scheme.

There is specific provision in the town and country planning legislation to enable planning applications to be made in respect of developments already carried out or begun. Indeed, in his report into this case the Parliamentary Commissioner comments that he is aware from other cases which he has investigated. that private developers also often make belated applications for planning permission". His conclusion was that while the system may have faltered in this case, the initiative as to whether the pressure reducing station should have been allowed rested with the local planning authority. He found that neither the Department of the Environment nor the Department of Energy was in default of its respective functions and responsibilities.

It is the case that the normal statutory development control procedures applied to this Gas Board development as they would have applied to any similar development by any private concern. The same enforcement provisions were available to the local planning authority. I find no grounds, on the evidence of this case, for singling out a nationalised statutory undertaker for any additional "code of conduct". There already is such a code for statutory undertakers on consultation and publicity matters—it was set out in DOE Circular 12/73. I believe that this code, taken in conjunction with the normal statutory arrangements which apply to statutory undertakers, is a sufficient safeguard to ensure the protection of high environmental standards.

Mr. Luce

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the two cases that we are examining two serious mistakes have been made by the respective Government organisations? If he accepts that, and if he also accepts that the present procedures are unsatisfactory, how can he ensure that such mistakes will never happen again?

Mr. Oakes

I do not accept that serious mistakes were made, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman is implying. What happened in the case of the reducer station can often happen with regard to a private developer when something goes wrong. In this case it was flooding, and it was open to the local planning authority, because it would have come out of GDO control, to take enforcement proceedings against any buildings that were being put up or to refuse planning consent for that development. I cannot guarantee—no Minister can—that no mistakes will ever be made.

The hon. Gentleman is unfortunate in that both these things should have happened within his constituency and that both should have involved Crown land and Government Departments. As this has happened to him, as it were, he has every right to look very closely at the system.

However, apart from what I have said about some of the remarks that Mr. Dobry made with regard to the general code, I do not think that the system, as a whole, is going seriously wrong. If this happened twice in my constituency I would consider it exceptionally unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman has been exceptionally unfortunate. I do not call these things mistakes, as such. I call them changes of circumstance through force of events, which can happen to a private developer in the same way as it can happen to a public developer.

The Government and the Department of the Environment will continue to watch this whole system very carefully indeed, to ensure that mistakes, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, or unfortunate incidents, are reduced to the absolute minimum. No Minister could say that they will never occur at all, but I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock a.m.