SEISMOGRAPH LIMITED(KESTON) (Hansard, 2 August 1978)

§ Mr. John Hunt (Ravensbourne)

I am very glad to have this opportunity of raising a matter which is causing grave concern to a large number of my constituents, and in particular to the members and officers of Bromley council and the Keston and district branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am proud to be the president. I refer to the decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow a large industrial building to be developed on the site at Holwood at Keston in my constituency.

May I say at the outset how much I regret and deplore the absence of the Secretary of State himself. He was here for the preceding Division and was present on the Government Front Bench a few minutes ago. Now he has scurried away, leaving the Under-Secretary to carry the can for him. This is deplorable and regrettable, because it is the 901 Secretary of State's personal decision that I am challenging. It was to him that I wanted to address a number of questions in order to elicit the basis upon which he made his decision, which has caused great dismay throughout my constituency and among all those who are concerned with the environment.

I remind the Minister that it is the Department of the Environment to which he belongs and which he is representing tonight. My previous understanding was that that Department was the jealous upholder of the environment and our rural amenities. It seems to me that in making his decision the Secretary of State betrayed the Department that he heads. That is one of the reasons why I am initiating this debate.

"Consternation" is the only word to describe the reaction of local people to the decision announced at the end of May. I thought that it was generally agreed that the protection of the green belt was a matter of great concern and importance to everyone who treasures our environment. But the site in question is not merely green belt but has been categorised as being of great landscape value. That emphasises the enormity of the offence which I believe the Secretary of State has committed in allowing the development to go ahead. In taking that decision, he has flown in the face of not only Bromley council but his own inspector at the appeal.

The original application was turned down by Bromley planning committee, composed of people who know their local area, who are familiar with the problems of the area and who know intimately the site in question. The inspector visited the site when he conducted the appeal, so he, too, was personally aware of the beautiful surroundings in the area of the site application.

Then the Secretary of State decided, from the Olympian heights of his Marsham Street building, without any reference to the site, without any knowledge of it, without any visit to it, that that vast building should be erected. I am told that the building represents a quarter of the size of Wembley Stadium. We are to have that industrial building in an area of great landscape value which has hitherto been regarded as a priceless asset not only for the residents of 902 Bromley but for those who live in southeast London and elsewhere, who come regularly into the area at weekends and other times and are often astonished to find the beauty of the landscape in an area so near the metropolis. Therefore, I believe that the decision is deplorable and represents the desecration of an area of immense amenity and environmental value.

The house of Holwood has a long and distinguished history. Within its grounds are a number of historical sites with remnants of the Iron Age which still have to be fully archaeologically explored. During the eighteenth century the house was occupied by the youngest of our Prime Ministers, William Pitt. It was in the grounds, under what is now called the Wilberforce Oak, that William Wilberforce finalised his plans for the abolition of slavery. This is the site that the Department of the Environment is now prepared to see developed by this great industrial complex, which I believe will transform its character and destroy its amenity.

It will be a massive intrusion not only into the green belt area but into an area which has already been classified as one of great landscape value. I am bound to tell the Minister that many in my constituency are totally mystified by the reasons for the decision. We maintain that the reasons which were given when the result of the appeal was announced are largely spurious and irrelevant.

I am also bound to tell the Minister that there is a rumour going around my constituency that the Secretary of State was nobbled by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who was concerned particularly with the activities of Seismograph Limited in the context of North Sea oil exploration. I hope that the Minister will be able tonight categorically to deny that rumour because, were it to be true, it would represent a grievous departure from all the previous standards of planning decisions and all the criteria under which these decisions have previously be made.

We in Bromley remain perplexed by the decision and very anxious for the future. The Secretary of State made the point in his ruling that this should not be seen as a precedent for the future, but Seismograph Limited is already on record as saying that even this additional space 903 of some 88,000 square feet will be sufficient for it only for the next 10 years. What happens after that? It will then come forward with a further application and will, of course, obviously quote the present decision as a precedent for its future application.

We are on a very slippery slope here. As I repeat, this is an area of immense value, so close to London, which is treasured by the local community and enjoyed by many far beyond it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able tonight to give some rather more satisfactory explanation of the decision than we have received so far.

I tabled a parliamentary Question some time ago and was told that the decision was based on its merits—a rather curt and unsatisfactory answer, if I may say so. But if the Secretary of State's decision was based on its merits, so, of course, was the decision of the Bromley planning committee in the first place, and the subsequent recommendations of the inspector at the appeal hearing. We want to know tonight why those decisions and those recommendations were so arbitrarily overruled by the Secretary of State.

Running behind the Secretary of State's decision was the implication that somehow without this permission Seismograph would be unable to continue with its activities in Keston on the present scale. I doubt that this is so. As far as I know there is no intention by Seismograph to move from Keston. I place on the record that the firm has been an admirable resident in every way. It has maintained the house and grounds in impeccable condition, and its activities have rarely, if ever, given any cause for concern or criticism among local residents.

But the present application has aroused local concern, and even without this additional vast new industrial building, Seismograph will apparently still continue its activities at Holwood. Subsequent to its original application for a new building, it has acquired and adapted another mansion at Ravensbourne in Westerham Road, which is now being used. That is the way to expand and develop its activities in the Keston area.

In doing so, the firm is not interfering with the amenities of the district. In fact, in some respects it is enhancing them 904 because it is able to maintain the grounds in a way that a private owner could not do. This is to be encouraged.

What we cannot encourage—indeed what we deplore—is the going ahead with the applications for a massive industrial building which will completely transform this part of my constituency. This will be particularly noticeable in winter because it will be an eyesore to those who enjoy the landscape in the area.

It is against the public interest that this appeal should have been allowed. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take careful note of what I have said, and be more forthcoming than the Secretary of State. I hope that he will come clean with the House on the reasons for the decision, and give us a much fuller explanation.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)

The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) has expressed very clearly his concern over a particular planning decision in his constituency and I will come on to that case quite shortly. But I would like to begin with a general point.

There are limits on the extent to which it is apropriate and useful to discuss the merits of particular planning decisions. Such decisions are, of course, taken quasi-judicially by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member quite rightly describes this as a personal decision by the Secretary of State, but he is sophisticated enough to be aware of the fact that with the thousands of decisions taken every year, it is impossible for the Secretary of State to take each one personally.

Therefore, I hope that whether my right hon. Friend took the decision personally or not, the hon. Member will excuse his absence tonight. This is not unusual in an Adjournment debate. I hope the hon. Member will accept a reasonable reply from me.

The inspector visited the site. It would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State, or anybody from the Department, to visit the site because the decision taken by the Secretary of State, or by anybody on his behalf, must be taken on the basis of the evidence produced, the findings of fact and the conclusions contained in the inspector's, report.

The inspector's report takes account of representations from interested parties, 905 including in this case, representations from the hon. Member, who wrote to the inspector expressing his hopes that the appeal would be dismissed.

It is inevitable therefore that my speech tonight must reiterate largely what is already known and there for all to see in the inspector's report and the decision letter. This is both unavoidable and proper. There are of course occasions—and this is one of them—when my right hon. Friend does not feel able to agree with the inspector's report. Nevertheless, the decision to disagree with an inspector is not taken lightly. His report is always a main feature in the planning decision.

I shall make two further points of a general kind. The hon. Member and the press suggest that there was consultation between the Departments of Energy, Industry and the Environment over this decision. I can categorically deny that. The inspector's report was considered entirely on its merits and in the usual way.

Any consultations require reference back to the parties to the inquiry, and no such consultations were made. If it were thought that my right hon. Friend had erred in this respect, or others, he could be challenged in law. There is a period of six weeks after a decision letter is issued during which the parties to an inquiry may appeal to the High Court through a notice of motion. In this case the period expired on 11th July and no such notice was served.

I turn to the case itself. The main issue in the appeal, as the inspector saw it, was the location of the proposed development in the metropolitan green belt. He reiterated the long-established policy for the metropolitan green belt that permission should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings for purposes other than agriculture, recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. It seemed to him that the proposed building would be unacceptable unless there were special circumstances which might justify an exception to the policy. He thought that there were no such special circumstances in this case.

My right hon. Friend took a different view. He thought that on the basis of the evidence submitted in the report there was a case for making an exception to 906 the green belt policy. In the letter conveying the Secretary of State's decision the reasons are clearly stated. I should like to repeat some of them—using my own words.

First, it seems right to give some weight to the particular needs of Seismograph in requiring the use of an area free from noise and electrical intereference. These needs are met on the Holwood estate where they have been installed for more than 20 years.

It is not irrelevant to note that one of the by-products of Seismograph's presence during this time has been the maintenance and refurbishment of Holwood House.

It is also the case that Seismograph's proposals would enable some of the old outbuildings to be restored to their original size and condition. With a reasonable amount of landscaping and screening, which was made a condition of the decision letter, the new building need not be conspicuous in its setting.

It was decided—and here I quote the actual terms of the decision letter— after a close study of all the relevant circumstances … that there is sufficient reason for making an exception to green belt policy in this case and that the land should be released for the development proposed It is emphasised that this decision has been taken in the light of the particular circumstances relating to the appeal site and should in no sense be taken as a precedent elsewhere in the green belt. Having made these points about the decision itself, perhaps I could mention some of the points made in the inspector's report, for they help to put this decision in its setting and indeed show why there is such concern felt by the hon. Member and others.

Holwood House is undoubtedly a very fine building. It is listed grade 1, and was the property of the family of the Earl of Derby until Seismograph became the owner in 1953. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to William Pitt's association with the house.

Since then Seismograph has used Holwood for office and industrial purposes. New buildings have been added in a piecemeal fashion to allow for the expansion of the business with the express consent of the local authorities concerned. In all, permission has been given for over 20,000 square feet of buildings in and around the walled garden area of the house. In 1973 a further permission was granted for the erection of a two-storey building with 907 basement of 27,000 square feet for industrial offices.

The demand for the services of Seismograph has grown rapidly, giving rise not only to the addition of these buildings in the gardens of Holwood House but in the acquisition of other small premises nearby at Bromley, Biggin Hill and Petts Wood.

It was part of Seismograph's case that the consolidation of its operations into one complex would enable it to remove some of the buildings which it has erected over the past 25 years in the walled kitchen garden and to restore the old outbuildings of the house to their original size and structural condition. It also pointed out that vehicles and plant could be parked within the courtyard of the proposed building instead of in the open parkland. The planning permission already granted for the erection of the 27,000 square feet two-storey computer building in the walled garden would be overtaken by the new development which would provide for the computer development.

It is only fair that I should mention here the views of Bromley council, which opposed the application. The council had, of course, given the various permissions over the years, including the most recent one, for the computer suite. However, it took the view the time had come to resist any further expansion of the activities at Holwood. The council thought that the proposed building would be visible from the footpath 50 yards away, that it would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the footpath, and to the setting of Holwood House and its grounds generally. It thought that the safeguarding policies of the green belt should be upheld, and in this it was supported by local residents and amenity societies.

When he came to weigh all this up, the inspector accepted that the particular nature of Seismograph's activities required the use of an area of land relatively free from noise and electrical interference and away from residential property, such as the Holwood estate provides, and that these conditions were unlikely to be found on any industrial estate. He also accepted that the erection of the proposed building would be likely to result in some improvement in 908 the appearance of the garden area adjacent to Holwood House. He took the view, however, that as the proposed building would not be completely screened in the views from Holwood House, it was unlikely that the development would result in any major improvement in the appearance and character of the listed building and its setting.

The inspector also formed the view that while the proposed building would be unlikely to be very prominent in any of the public views, the consolidation of Seismograph's present activities at Holwood and extension over a larger area of the grounds would be detrimental to the contribution which the Holwood estate makes to the green belt.

As I have said, my right hon. Friend came to a different conclusion. He noted that Seismograph was unlikely to be able to find another suitable site, that its proposals were likely to improve the appearance of the garden area and, if suitably screened, to cause very little effect on Holwood House and its setting.

It seemed to my right hon. Friend significant that Seismograph has occupied Holwood House for 25 years, during which time it has preserved the building and its grounds. This is a welcome contrast to the position with some other historic buildings. These factors had to be balanced against the effect on the metropolitan green belt.

There is no intention that this case should have any effect on green belt policy. The decision letter states that this is regarded as a special case, and it will certainly not be regarded as a precedent to justify other departures from green belt policy.

The question is whether the effect on the green belt locally would be so adverse as to outweigh the benefits of allowing Seismograph to consolidate its activities in the site which it has occupied for 25 years.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the view on the evidence before him that, provided the building itself were screened as suggested so as to preserve the appearance of the site itself, the planning permission should be given. A decision such as this is always a matter of judgment, and in this case the adverse effects did not seem so great as to merit the rejection of the appeal.

909 I emphasise that this does not prejudge any future decision regarding Seismograph or any other company. It is a one-off decision. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that when another application came forward it would be a foregone conclusion that it would be accepted. That is not the case.

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I assure him that the decision 910 was taken according to the proper procedures. It was taken in the light of the evidence that was made available to the Secretary of State as a consequence of the inquiry and the inspector's report.