HOUSING (BAGWORTH) (Hansard, 10 May 1976)

§ Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)
The title of this debate is the Ministerial rejection of an application for council house building in Bagworth. That is a rather prosaic title for a debate which is about a matter of life and death. The Minister and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think that those are strong words, perhaps a little emotional, but I think that they are not.
The debate concerns the future of a coal mining village in Leicestershire—whether it should continue to decline, dying on its feet, or whether, by approving the building of 30 houses, which is the subject of the application, the decline can be halted and hope given for the future. The Minister and his Department have decided to reject the application, or rather—and this gives me a little ground for hope—he has decided to support his regional office. I hope to be able to put to him some new considerations and perhaps different emphases on those he has already in mind.
It is worth looking first at the history of the village. We are not talking of a Victorian upstart, if I can use the expression—a coal mining village with no other background; we are looking at one which goes back at least to the Domesday Book, where the record is of a little village—a community of 35 people—particularly known, apparently, for its wood of a mile long and and half a mile wide. We have there almost a potted history of rural England—of great names, of changes of ownership, of the embattlement and the enclosure of Bagworth Manor, and then its devastation after it was garrisoned by the troops of King Charles I in the Civil War—the losing side.
The modern history of the village starts in 1828, when the present colliery was opened. Gradually over the years the population rose from the then 300 or 400, until it peaked in 1931 at 1,568. That is a significant figure. Since then, the population has been declining. In 1967, it was already reduced to about 193 1,000; today it is down to 627—a decline of 34 per cent. in eight years. One in three of the people have had to leave because of mining subsidence, one of the difficulties of the village.
The pit is a record pit. In six out of the last 12 months, it has achieved productivity records, coming top of the National Coal Board's list of all pits in the United Kingdom. It is proud of its performance, and the village is proud of it.
The history of the case as far as I am concerned goes back to November 1960, when I had nothing to do with the village. I took over some of the papers from my predecessor, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt. In them there is a striking reference to a letter from the then clerk to the Leicestershire County Council, dated 3rd November 1960. The letter included the statement that: Nobody wants to kill a community and I know that it is not the intention of the planning authority to kill Bagworth. If I accused myself of being emotional in my opening words, I think that that phrase from the clerk to the Leicestershire County Council indicates that perhaps I was not exaggerating. I took over the tale from Woodrow Wyatt in 1970. In the previous year he had written to the then Minister of Power, with a copy to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, saying I am in despair about Bagworth. …". Attention at that time was centred on a possible development away from the main built-up area. An application for bungalows had been put in in January 1971. I was actively involved. With the encouragement of local councillors and local people, I pursued the then Secretary of State for the Environment to approve the application, but it was turned down on the ground that the project was outside the village limits.
The NCB, which, as always, was cooperating with the local council in an attempt to find a satisfactory site for housing in Bagworth, decided to go ahead and to remove the pillar it had guaranteed under the then chosen site.
The story moves on. There was an even greater determination by the local people to save the village and the "Save Bagworth" campaign began early in the autumn of 1971. That culminated in a meeting in November 1971, which was 194 attended by many people, including county planning officers, various councillors and officers of the NCB. That was the turning point, because out of that meeting an offer of land was made by the National Coal Board.
I am sure that the Minister will have seen the letter from the then director of the South Midlands area, dated 13th December 1971, which proposed that there was an area of 1½ acres, available now, and stable, a further area available within 12 months of some 14½ acres which would he available after 12 months, and further stable land available in later years. The site proposed was not perfect, because it was overhung by the colliery tip, but because of the continuing need to maintain the life of Bagworth it was decided to proceed. An article in the Coalville Times was headed: Bagworth—the village no one wants to live in—is back from the dead. Even then there were problems. Eventually 13 old people's bungalows designed to house people living in houses that were in need of demolition were completed. People were determined to stay in their village, and in 1974 two couples were still living in the last of the remaining houses that were in a bad condition and due for demolition. They were loth to leave their village.
The land to which I referred earlier as being made available was the land on which the bungalows were built. Stage 2 of the development was therefore taken for granted. It was assumed that when the further acres of land mentioned by the director became available the council would build on them. At that time it was intended to build 80 houses. Local inhabitants took it for granted that the plan would go ahead, until the whole matter burst again in the autumn of 1974. It was then suggested that work would not proceed. Another development occurred. The school already hit by subsidence became more damaged and children were being taught in mobile classrooms, whilst another school was also threatened by undermining.
The parent-teacher and friends association became active, the local education authority was brought in, the Bag-worth Action Group was reincarnated, and the Women's Institute wrote to me saying that unless something was done, Bagworth would be non-existent. Local 195 councillors also played their part. The local education authority understood that the building of the houses would proceed and that there would be parents moving into the village, making more children available for the school. The education authority prudently talked to the National Coal Board and received the same impression that we all had—that the land would not be undermined and that it would be effectively stable. Plans were therefore made and approved for the building of the school on the site that is the subject of this discussion.
The regional office of the Department of the Environment was rightly asking questions, when the application came before it, and answers were given that appeared to me satisfactory in all respects. Then came the shattering blow of the Department's decision and the subsequent approval of that decision by the Minister.
I have deliberately dwelt at length on the history of the matter because this is no fly-by-night exercise—no sudden intention of the council to build council houses on a spot not previously considered. It is not a sudden thought that the village is likely to decline into nothing; it is a matter of the history of Bagworth, which is almost as old as the subsidence damage from which the village suffers.
I understand the Department's case to rest on three main points—the unsatisfactory location of the site, high site development costs, and the tentative proposals for new workings by the NCB with the likely subsidence effects.
I shall deal with the third point first. I think that there has been considerable misunderstanding about the question whether the site is stable. When I look back through the files, I find time and again letters that all have the same assumption. There are letters from the then clerk to the rural district council and from the then Minister for Local Government and Development in 1972, records of the talks I had with the planning officer of the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council in November 1974, and letters from the director of education, who also had the same understanding about stability.
Yet the local Press suggested that the reason for the Department's turning the 196 application down was the likely damage from mining subsidence. Therefore, the most relevant letter that I must draw to the Minister's attention—though I again suspect that he may well have had a copy prepared for him—is from the present Area Director of the South Midlands Area of the NCB, who sent me a copy of a letter that he wrote to the Chief Executive of the Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, in which he said: My Board's position has never varied in that ever since the site was offered in December 1971 to the then Market Bosworth Rural District Council we have reiterated our guarantee that no coal would be worked under it. We have, in the past, referred to the slight ground movement likely to result from workings nearby, but we have advised that minor structural precautions, no more in fact than were included in the old people's bungalows built on the adjacent plot, would suffice to combat the predicted slight movement. He is referring to the position that was confirmed to me in the letter of December 1971, which I have already quoted.
Of course there is a risk of drag from nearby workings, but there will be no under-mining. All the research I have done and all the information I have received lead me to believe that the risk is small.
In regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the site, the area director said: The site remains the most stable in Bagworth… We would not hesitate to recommend its use for proposed housing development. At present it is the only site where virtually no subsidence can be guaranteed. It is unsatisfactory in the sense that it lies under the shadow of the spoilheap.
How long will the pit survive? How long will there be mining in the Bagworth area? The NCB cannot be definite, but in the foreseeable future the pit will mine itself out. We can then expect the eyesores that exist in the village to be removed. Certainly the area can be landscaped to make it an attractive feature. One further point is that the site is in the centre of the village.
I believe that the location of the site adjacent to the pithead will prove attractive to the miners working at that famous colliery. Relatively few now live in the village. Others have to travel, and with today's cost of transport I think that many of them would be happy to live closer to their work.
197 That brings me to the subject of site development costs. The project undoubtedly will cost more; that fact has never been hidden. Structural precautions will have to be undertaken. The building will involve rafts on which the houses can stand in comparative safety. If subsidence occurs, the rafts can be jacked up to bring the building back into equilibrium. This method has been used in the village before, and, indeed, it is in use throughout the country.
It is estimated that this process will cost £1,000 more per house. At present, one hesitates to ask for additional Government expenditure. As a subsidiary argument, I would say that if that cost cannot be afforded now or next year, if we could guarantee building within a period of two years one would accept it—and I believe that the village would, too. However, I wish to press on the Minister that the plans should go ahead now. I do not believe that the cost of £31,000 for site development work is too much to pay for the future of that village.
Mention has been made by the Department of the waiting lists for these houses, and whether they are capable of being let—and, indeed, whether they can survive for the minimum 60-year period. I have no doubt as to the last point. Figures have been presented to the Department showing that there are 20 applicants on the waiting list in Bagworth and 13 in nearby Thornton, and that the borough council waiting list at present extends to a total of over 1,700 names. That figure may be reduced in the present review, but certainly the figure will be well over 1,000. The fact that the present applications are lower than the proposed number of houses is of no significance. If it is thought that houses will not be built, nobody will apply for a house in a village. But I have suggested that the miners at the pit, especially, would wish to live there.
I have answered the points of substance on which the regional office of the Department made its decision, but the main question is still the one that has been proposed throughout: do we have a slow decline, or is there a future for the village?
There is in the village a church, rebuilt about six years ago. The Bishop of Leicester wrote to me: 198 It would be sad for us if we were left with the church, newly erected, but with no village! There is a working men's club in Bag-worth, again built to be subsidence-resistant. It would be sad, to echo the bishop's words, to have a working men's club with no workers living in the village. We have a school to accommodate 120 pupils, which is planned and agreed to go on the very site that we are discussing. It would be sad if we had a school and no children.
The fact is that in eight years the village population has declined by one-third. It is an ageing population. Compared with the borough as a whole, there are many more people over the age of 45 and many fewer under the age of 45 than the average.
Those are the statistics. Underneath them there is a strong feeling, and a strong emotion, that only by this decision now can the village be assured of a future. These new houses would allow the village to look ahead with confidence to the end of mining, when a proper community can be planned and developed.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
I understand the very strong feelings of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler). I might tell him that I was born in a West Durham mining village, and I now represent it. In that village, there has been no building at all since the war. What is more, 200 houses have been bulldozed down. I know something about the community life, and I want to assure him at the beginning of my remarks that it is not the job of my Department, and we have no wish, to destroy community life or to dictate to people where they will live or not live. I appreciate the hon. Member's great concern.
I had intended to say something about the development over the years, but the hon. Gentleman has been very fair and has told the House of the diminishing population and the effect of the pit and so on, on the village itself.
In the few minutes at my disposal, let me turn to the actual site on which the borough council made application to build 30 dwellings. The picture is depressing. The site, which is about three acres, is far from inviting in its. 199 general appearance. Not to mince words, it is a coal stocking yard covered with 18 inches of fine coal. It has been established that considerable expenditure is required to make it physically possible to put homes on it.
I am not reciting facts and statistics merely for their own sake. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the value of a closely-knit community. But we have to deal with matters as they are. We have to face reality. The site development works—consisting of foul and surface water sewers, access paths, roads and pavements, landscaping, public utilities and land cost—were estimated last October to cost £2,484 per dwelling, and the ad hoc allowances would amount to about £1,371 per dwelling. The land purchase costs represent only £500 per dwelling, but the overall site costs might amount to £5,000 per dwelling. This is partly because a dewatering system would probably have to be installed during construction and a more extensive land drainage system evolved.
It is possible that because of the high water table on parts of the site, piling would be required. In addition, the site inspection report prepared by consultant engineers last year showed that there were tentative proposals for further coal mining under the site in 1978–79, which could result in further subsidence. Even the heroic measures that I have just mentioned—

§ Mr. Adam Butler
rose—

§ Mr. Armstrong
I cannot give way at the moment; I want to say something that may be helpful. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman wants to say to me afterwards.
Even the heroic measures which I have just mentioned would not make the land remotely attractive as a housing site. It would still look out on to a large spoil heap and be flanked on two sides by overgrown waste land. And the site is badly located in relation to such social services as the village has, which are about three quarters of a mile away.
The hon. Gentleman has fairly described the point of view adopted by the Department in discussing this proposal with officials of the Hinckley and Bosworth Council. The view it has taken 200 is surely a very reasonable one. It has sought to discourage the council from proceeding with its scheme. It asks that development should be deferred until it is quite certain that there will be no further risk of subsidence and until there is clear evidence of the need and demand for houses—particularly bearing in mind that, when the Department last checked, there were only 16 applicants on the housing waiting list for dwellings in Bagworth.
I emphasise that the Department is not seeking to kill Bagworth or to accelerate its decline. We are giving a realistic judgment on the present application. If the housing authority comes forward with a reasonable proposition for a housing site capable of being developed at a sensible cost, and can show that there is a real demand for the houses it proposes to build, development in or near Bagworth is by no means ruled out. Indeed, it would be encouraged.
It is true that the National Coal Board has been active in the neighbourhood and that many sites are affected or may be affected by subsidence, but there must surely be some suitable sites within a few miles if not nearer. If the council cannot acquire land by agreement for housing, it has compulsory purchase powers.
The county planning authority has designated Bagworth in its structure plan as a "restraint" village, where it is necessary to determine whether further limited growth should be allowed and where the scale of any growth will largely be determined by the level of local conditions and services. In the immediate neighbourhood, the structure plan, which now awaits final decision, nominates two villages—namely, Barlestone and Ibstock, both within three miles of Bagworth—as category 1 settlements more suitable for expansion.
To sum up, the particular scheme which the Department has turned down is surely a "non-starter" on any reasonable assessment. We cannot countenance a scheme which so lacks justification on any of the usual criteria for looking at housing plans. But my Department is very ready to consider any other scheme for limited housing in or near Bagworth if the local authority will make out the case for it.
I appreciate the effect on morale and the effect on those who have lived in the 201 village all their lives and want to continue living in it. We have been as realistic as possible in the light of the facts that have been submitted to us. I hope that what I have said will encourage the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to make any other representations, and if 202 there are any new circumstances, I assure him that I shall give them careful consideration.