§
Lords amendment: No. 218, in page 244, line 30, at end insert—
(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, where planning permission is so granted for any development or class of development, the enterprise zone authority may direct that the permission shall not apply in relation
(3B) An enterprise zone authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3A) above unless they have submitted it to the Secretary of State and he has notified them that he approves of their giving it.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisThe Under-Secretary of State is aware of the deep concern that there has been in the Greater Manchester area about the proposal to build a hypermarket of about 175,000 sq ft in the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone.
Yesterday I took a deputation to see the Minister at the Department of the Environment. The deputation included distinguished representatives of the Norwest Co-operative Society and all the chambers of trade in Greater Manchester. Mr. Walter Frost, the president, Mr. Rodney Aspray, the chief executive officer, Mr. K. J. Tottle, a director and Mr. E. C. F. Rogers, the estates and 435 property controller, spoke for the Norwest Co-operative Society. Mr. Colin Gregory spoke for the 19 chambers of trade. At the same time I made it clear to the Minister on the basis of a statement from the Greater Manchester Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the local authorities in the conurbation are overwhelmingly against the proposed hypermarket. Indeed, Mr. James Hetherington, the secretary of the association, stated:
The establishment of a major retail outlet in an enterprise zone in Greater Manchester free of effective planning control will, in the view of the Association, do considerable harm to the infrastructure of the conurbation.For the Norwest Co-operative Society it was argued that the proposed hypermarket would not, overall, create any extra jobs as the damage caused to existing shops, including closures and cutbacks in staffing, would more than cancel out any new jobs that might be created. A powerful example was given in that 100 jobs would be lost immediately in the Irlam-O'-th'-Heights area where the society has a detailed planning consent for a new store.Mr. Aspray said that the society would almost certainly not develop the new outlet as planned if the hypermarket is built, as the viability studies suggested that the store would just not hold up against such a huge competitor enjoying all the special advantages that attach to enterprise zones.
The society's representatives also emphasised that to allow retail developments in the enterprise zone of the size proposed would conflict sharply with the Secretary of State's proposed amendments to the Greater Manchester structure plan.
For the chambers of trade Mr. Gregory said that what was proposed
could seriously damage existing major investment in town centres with corresponding losses of employment.He pointed out that within a mile of the Salford-Trafford enterprise zone there is the now almost completed Arndale centre, which has entailed massive investment. Nearby in Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Leigh, Wigan and Stretford there are other equally prestigious town centre developments that now contribute much by way of return on other major investments.
§ Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister to accept that there would be dangers inherent in the granting of complete freedom from planning control within the enterprise zone. The outcome of the meeting yesterday was a statement from the Minister in the following terms:
The deputation has made its case very clearly. We are considering including a requirement in the Salford/Trafford Enterprise Zone scheme which would make larger-scale retail developments subject to individual planning applications.This is a very important matter for retailers throughout the Manchester conurbation.I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in seeing the deputation and his clear concern to make a constructive response to the strong—indeed, unanswerable—case that was argued by the deputation. What I should like to hear now in the House is a more detailed statement from the Minister. As he heard yesterday, the issue is very important for Greater Manchester, and I feel sure that he will want to do everything in his power further to allay the anxieties that the deputation expressed to him yesterday.
§ Mr. GrahamThis is not an issue on which we want to divide the House. However, these matters are crucial to many retailers and it is a pity that we are debating them at this late hour. I am grateful for the detail given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We both represent co-operative interests. Some Conservative Members also have retailing background and experience.
The Minister should deal with the unease that is felt. He has displayed in Committee and informally his recognition that there are questions that need answers. We recognise that it is not possible to lay down a blueprint that will be applied rigidly to every enterprise zone. They are all different and there will be different solutions.
The Association of Municipal Authorities last week called a conference of representatives of authorities with enterprise zones in their area. Various concerns were voiced. A local authority, if not sovereign, has a major say in whether it wishes to include retailing. However, the local authority in Swansea 437 wished to exclude retailing. It was told by the Welsh Office that major retail units had to be included and that it must entertain developments of up to 65,000 sq ft. Swansea protested, but has not been able to resist the determination of the Welsh Office. We need to know more about that. Merseyside has said that it will not entertain shopping users of over 10,000 sq ft. It has been able to get that accepted. The Minister should make it clear whether he and his officials intend to be the arbiters of what they consider are the best interests of the people in an area.
At the meeting Newcastle also emphasised its fear of the retail implications. Land near the city centre had been taken out of the proposed area. It was concerned about facing existing developers with what could be seen to be unfair competition—and I am not now arguing about the philosophy behind enterprise zones. However, it is one thing to encourage an authority with an appropriate piece of land to invite new users. It is another to force competition on developers and entrepreneurs who have spent millions of pounds building up nearby city centres where they have to pay rates, and go through the gamut of planning.
I could give several other examples, but I shall not because of the lateness of the hour. The Minister should say a brief word to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe who has presented a powerful case. He did so most cogently. I was pleased to hear him say that the Minister was sympathetic. Nothing specific can be said about Manchester, but I hope that the Minister will reassure many authorities that the Government will not insist—over the heads of the people—on the Ministry's view of the type of mix that should be found in an enterprise zone.
§ Mr. SpearingWe know the background to this provision. I reinforce the view expressed by my colleagues, particularly in relation to sub-paragraph (3B). It is clear that if a local authority with an enterprise zone in its area wishes to make one of those directions, the Secretary of State will notify it of his approval. If the Secretary of State does not approve, the local authority will not 438 benefit and the exclusion does not occur.
For example, large-scale retail activity could go ahead. The matter lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, and therefore the amendment is not as good as it looks at first glance. Will the Minister confirm that if an urban development corporation is the enterprise zone authority the local authority will have no locus? If, for example, an enterprise zone in the Isle of Dogs is sponsored not by the local authority but by an urban development corporation, the local authority will not be able to apply to the Minister. The matter will fall within the province of the urban development corporation. In that case, the amendment is a non-starter. It has no effect.
§ Mr. KingThe hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is still trying to stir up hostility, although it may not exist to the same extent as earlier. The idea that an enterprise zone is being imposed on the Isle of Dogs, under the aegis of the urban development corporation, and against a hostile local authority, is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that Tower Hamlets applied to have an enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. The GLC, Tower Hamlets and the urban development corporation agree about the desirability of having an enterprise zone.
The safeguard of the Secretary of State's approval has been provided because this provision involves voluntary co-operation. We have a proposal for a new and relaxed form of planning regime. We want to experiment in certain areas to see if it provides an incentive to enterprise. With it, go certain attractive inducements such as the exemption from industrial and commercial rates. An authority could agree to a relaxed and simplified planning regime. Having achieved its objectives, and in the absence of sub-paragraph (3B), it could easily tighten up the planning regime in every particular. That would negate the purpose of the exercise. The Secretary of State's confirmation is needed to ensure that the integrity of the original scheme is upheld.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) raised the question of our approach to retailing issues. As I have made clear before, there are difficulties involved and it is not possible to lay 439 down a limitation applicable to every enterprise zone. That would be unwise. I cannot comment on the situation in Swansea, because that is being dealt with by the Welsh Office. However, we have made clear our views.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) felt the need to put the matter on the record again. I do not know why he felt that to be necessary. He saw my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with a deputation yesterday. We are well aware of the concern. Two weeks ago I visited Manchester and inspected some of the area. I discussed with a number of those in the area their concern about the implications that they saw for retailing development. I made clear that we understand the concerns. We are looking at the problems and it is clear that in certain areas some limitation on retailing may be sensible.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisI make it clear again that the issue is one of considerable importance in Manchester. I have been asked by constituents to express their anxiety and I shall go on doing that in the House unless we have the firmest possible assurances.
§ Mr. KingI do not know why the right hon. Member has to keep on repeating himself. Perhaps reselection really does bite. We know his concerns. He does not have to keep repeating them. My hon. Friend was willing to receive a deputation and we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concern.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 219 to 257 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
§ Lords amendments Nos. 258 to 262 agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 264 and 265 agreed to.