HC Deb 15 December 1986 vol 107 cc946-57 3.20 am
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

I am delighted at this unholy hour in the morning to bring to the House a matter which I have tried three times previously to raise. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—a subject on which I had extensive correspondence with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). This matter has fomented a storm in my constituency and has raised again an antipathy to the Government which has not been seen since the proposal by Sir John Nott in the 1981 defence review to close Chatham dockyard and royal naval base—a closure which precipitated high unemployment.

The matter which I raise concerns many of the people in my constituency—the proposed sale by the Property Services Agency, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, of that piece of land known as the Great Lines, which lies between Chatham, Brompton and Gillingham. The Property Services Agency proposes to offer for sale on the open market some 38 acres of open space which is redundant to the Ministry of Defence and has been for many years. This land represents a valuable "green lung" to the people who live in the most densely developed part of my constituency. The streets adjacent to the Great Lines are made up largely of terrace houses, built during Victorian and Edwardian times and occupied largely by the people who worked in the dockyard or in the engineering businesses along the banks of the Medway. This part of my constituency closely resembles the densely packed, back-to-back houses and streets of many a northern city. The Great Lines have been the local park for all those people for many years and now the PSA proposes to sell the land in a way that gives little hope that it will remain available to them for recreation.

The Great Lines, moreover, are an historic open space, having been the lines of fire for the forts which guarded the dockyard, one of which has been magnificently restored by a trust aided by community programme workers. Although not covered with the ancient monuments that the historic dockyard a few hundred yards away has, the lines form an integral part of the 450-year history of these great garrison and naval-based towns. The Great Lines are very visible, forming the sky line above Chatham which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), whom I am delighted to see here, although I must apologise for keeping her from her bed. I am pleased also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). At the left-hand end of that skyline on the escarpment looking up over Chatham town hall is the evocative sight of the great naval war memorial to those sailors of the Nore Command who gave their lives in this nation's service.

I have had a lengthy correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton aimed at persuading him to offer the Great Lines to Gillingham borough council at open space value so that the council can preserve them as a public open space for the use of my constituents in this crowded corner of the Medway towns.

I have been much encouraged in my quest by many individuals and by every conceivable conservation group. Many hundreds of people have signed petitions—sadly, not in a form that might be acceptable to this House, but none the less sincere in the desire not to see development on the Great Lines. Above all, my efforts have been spurred by members of Gillingham borough council, which is the very model of a careful, thrifty council. This year it has constructed a budget which, with the assistance of a kindly rate support grant settlement, has enabled the borough council to levy a district council rate of 0p in the pound. Gillingham has never built up the kind of balances that would enable it to compete with property developers who might seek to buy the Great Lines on a hope value basis. The only realistic price that the council could pay would be open space value.

On 10 April this year, at my behest, the then junior defence Minister responsible for disinvesting the Great Lines, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), visited the area and saw the situation on the ground. He expressed a good deal of sympathy with the concern of local people, although his duties clearly prevented him from abandoning the Ministry of Defence aspiration to obtain the best possible price.

I do not wish to be churlish to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but our lengthy dialogue on the subject of the Great Lines did not give me the feeling that he really appreciated the great concern that the proposals caused locally. He repeatedly offered the somewhat disingenuous advice that future development of the Great Lines lay in the hands of the council. That would no doubt be true, were it not certain that any developer buying the Great Lines on a hope basis would appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against any council refusal of permission to develop.

Who can say what would be the outcome of such an appeal? Local interested parties are, not unnaturally, somewhat cynical about the fact that the Department not only adjudicates such appeals but is the Government's own estate agent, charged with obtaining the best price for the sale of Government land.

Moreover, there have already been development incursions on the Great Lines. The Ministry of Defence built an estate of married quarters and Kent county council purchased two sizeable chunks of land on which a large secondary school and a smaller primary school have been constructed. Local people fear that those incursions might be interpreted as precedents in a future planning appeal before a Department of the Environment inspector.

In recent months I have tried to be an enabler or catalyst between the Department of the Environment and the local council and local interested parties to seek a compromise solution. Discussions took place at officer level between representatives of the Property Services Agency and Gillingham council to see whether a planning application for a modest amount of residential development designed to be least damaging to the environmental character of the Great Lines could be framed in a way acceptable to the council, with the residual open space passing to council ownership.

It was felt that the loss of five or perhaps seven acres of open space would not be too grievous and would allow the PSA to realise a substantial sum from the sale of the development land. I found that kind of compromise attractive and the discussions took place notwithstanding the continuing hostility of many councillors, residents and conservation groups who preferred that not a blade of grass should be touched.

In the event, the PSA submitted a planning application for no less than 14 acres, taking little or no account of environmental sensitivity and without having achieved or, I believe, even sought informal agreement from the council. That greedy, predatory application has wrecked the carefully constructed spirit of compromise. The council is now minded once again to resist all development on the Great Lines and to look with an extremely jaundiced eye at any future planning application from the PSA for any of the other redundant Ministry of Defence land in Gillingham. I must make it entirely clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I sympathise completely with the council. A sensible compromise could have been constructed but for the burgeoning commercial aspirations of the PSA.

I should like to return to a part of my correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton concerning the responsibility for determining whether the development should be allowed. I shall read from some letters that he has sent me. His letter of 12 February 1986 says: It is PSA's clear responsibility to ensure that market value is obtained when disposing of surplus Government land and, to ensure this, the planning position must be investigated before sale. PSA's Estate Surveyor is therefore appointing marketing agents who will advise on the potential of the Great Lines area or any part of it. The limitation of development on this site or its preservation as open space are matters for resolution by the proper planning process which, as David Trefgarne pointed out, exists precisely to safeguard the public interest. Whilst I can understand the concern of the Gillingham Borough Council, their wishes do not in my view constitute an overriding reason to justify a departure from the Government's policy which is to offer surplus property on the open market. The Council will, of course, be able to bid for the property when it is offered. That letter was supported by Lord Trefgarne, who wrote: While I can understand the points which you and Mr. Jones"— the chief executive of Gillingham then— make about reserving the area as an open space both for amenity and heritage reasons, I do not think that it would be right for me to interfere in the normal disposal arrangements which are a matter for Sir George Young at the PSA. Moreover, there is a proper legal framework for deciding on development proposals, and I am sure that, if any planning application were to be submitted for development of the area, the most appropriate way for it to be considered is through the due planning processes, which, as you will appreciate, have been instituted specifically to guard against development which is against the public interest. That is an interesting thought.

On 24 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote again: As I pointed out in my recent letter of 12 February, development control is a matter for the planning process and, as local planning authority, Gillingham Borough Council have the key role. That is further confirmation. On 22 July, my hon. Friend wrote: the PSA sought advice from the Agents to assist it in the marketing of Great Lines and it would therefore be inappropriate to publish any report. That is a reference to the report that the advisers had drawn up. The letter continued:

As I have repeatedly stressed, any proposal for development which PSA may put forward will lead to a planning application to the local planning authority. The normal planning processes and public participation will then follow. I am anxious, as I am sure you are, not to undermine the role of the Gillingham Borough Council in the control of development in the locality. In a letter to County Councillor Ferrin, who had written to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his role as chairman of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote: I am sorry that I cannot be of more assistance, but planning control is a matter for the local planning authority and I must avoid interfering with that responsibility. In answer, on 23 July 1986, to my asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement on the proposed sale, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote once again:

The PSA Estate Surveyor is in discussion with Borough Council officials regarding the development potential of part of the property, and it is intended to submit an outline planning application, which, if granted, will benefit the disposal whilst at the same time ensure the protection of local conservation interests. It seems to me that my hon. Friend's emphasis on the pre-eminent role of the local authority in determining a planning application means that if Gillingham borough council decides to resist all planning applications for development of the Great Lines, my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will presumably uphold the council's right to do that and refuse any appeals against the council's decision. That is most important and I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance on that point.

I also seek my hon. Friend's assurance that any prospectus for the sale of the land will contain a clear, bold caveat that development of any part or all of the Great Lines will determined by Gillingham borough council and that such development must therefore be considered to be most unlikely.

With luck, such a caveat would make the sale of the Great Lines to a developer, bidding on hope value, more remote, and therefore make it more feasible for the council to purchase the Great Lines at open space value. There is a great fear locally that a "hopeful" developer might purchase the land, fence it and allow it to go derelict in the expectation that the council would ultimately have to allow development in order to eradicate what, by then, would be an eyesore.

The Great Lines are much loved by my constituents as an open space. They will be bitterly resentful of the Government if they seek to sell the whole of this priceless and irreplaceable green lung for the development of more housing in an area which already has inner-city densities of development. Gillingham borough council area has an average population of 21 people to the hectare, which is almost twice as much as Thanet, the next most populous district in Kent.

No one would seriously suggest developing houses in Hyde park, on Hampstead Heath, in Richmond park or on Blackheath in London. No one would be allowed to build on the Stray at Harrogate or on the Town Moor in Newcastle-on-Tyne. My hon. Friend's own city of Southampton is well provided with public parks—East and West parks, Palmerston park, Houndwell park Hoglands park, Riverside park and Town Hill park, not to mention Rownhams, Lordswood and Southampton common. What would be the reaction of the citizens of Southampton if one of those green open spaces was suggested for development?

For the people of Gillingham, Chatham and Brompton, the Great Lines are all of those urban green lungs rolled into about 40 acres. Because the Army and the Royal Navy owned so much land in the Medway towns, the local authorities had no chance to acquire suitable land for parks and gardens. The disposal by the Ministry of Defence of the Great Lines offers a once-and-for-all opportunity for Gillingham council to raise the area of public open space in its ownership, but it can do so only if the land is sold at open space values, not residential land values.

There are many acres of redundant land in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence in the Medway towns, much of which is inferior to the Great Lines and thus much more developable. What should happen is that representatives of the PSA should sit down with senior members and officers of Gillingham borough council, Rochester city council and Kent country council to discuss the whole of the Ministry of Defence's land holding and all the likely disinvestments. I am certain that the local authorities would take a completely realistic view of planning applications on much of the land likely to be declared redundant, particularly if the integrity of the Great Lines is preserved by conveying the land to Gillingham borough council.

I conclude by urging my hon. Friend to call in this matter for his personal consideration and I should further like to invite him to visit the Great Lines and see the situation for himself. Much hope in the Medway towns attaches to our brief debate and I hope that my hon. Friend will not shatter that faith in the basis of fair dealing by Government. The aspirations of folk in the Medway towns have received some nasty knocks over the past five or six years and the development of housing on what they see as their local recreational park could well be one blow too many. The time has come for rebuilding their confidence. I am grateful for this opportunity to put their case.

3.39 am
Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway)

I have come to the Chamber this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) to express solidarity with a colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). As with so many other factors in the Medway towns, the larger proportion of the affected area is within the borough council and constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham—rather like the Chatham dockyard, which was always called Chatham after my constituency, but which really had nine tenths of its acreage in the curtilage of my hon. Friend's constituency.

We have a border interest in the Great Lines. Within the area of the Rochester upon Medway city council and my constituency lies some 25 per cent. of the total area of the Great Lines. The area upon which the development has been proposed does not fall in that area. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has so graphically described, the nature of the wonderful area of land is such that whatever is done on any part of the land will have a visual impact upon my constituents.

We have a tremendous tradition in the Medway towns of love, tolerance and great support for the services. Over the years we have made many sacrifices in areas of land required by the services, to which my hon. Friend referred, that are scattered all over the Medway towns. I approve of and appreciate that it is proper for the state when it no longer requires such land to ensure that it divests itself of the land. I have had correspondence with the Department and I explained that when the state no longer requires land which has been freely given, used and accepted as land for the use of the services, the state has a responsibility to pay some heed to the voice of the people living in the locality over the way in which the future of that land is decided.

My hon. Friend has told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that Gillingham borough council is a very good Conservative council. I want to state that it is joined by a council that, over the 11 years of its government, has not raised the borough rate once. We are considering two councils that are very mindful of the public purse and well understand the need of the PSA to receive some recompense for the land.

However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that the area is now regarded as a great green line in a fairly densely populated area of the Medway towns. I hope that he will come and see the site for himself and reconsider the compromise put forward by Gillingham borough council in whose curtilage the site lies. I hope that he will appreciate that we three Members with constituency interests—my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Mid-Kent and myself—are here at this unusual hour of the morning because we have a solidarity in representing what we know to be the views of the constituents in our three constituencies.

3.43 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has made a case that requires little elaboration from this neighbour. I do not have a part of the Great Lines in my constituency, but I have inherited from my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) the majority of the town of Chatham. The people of Chatham feel very strongly that the Great Lines is a part of the heritage of the area. I am here because, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Medway, I feel totally committed to the defence of this patch.

The Medway towns have been the home of a wide range of substantial defence commitments for many centuries and they have been proud to play a leading part in the defence of this country, especially against threats from a Europe which, in the past, was rather more hostile than it is usually seen to be now. That is fair enough. However, one of the consequences of being so heavily dependent upon defence for a larger part of one's manpower, industry and landholding is that one pays a heavy price. When things are going badly for the country everybody wants to know about the area. They pour resources in, ask the dockyard to build and refit ships and provide large quantities of work. The moment the danger has passed, historically, Britain has always rewarded the armed services and the people who depend upon them with an extraordinary ingratitude. The consequence is that the Medway towns have always been one of the least prosperous parts of the south-east and, often, one of the least prosperous parts of the United Kingdom because their economy has gone up and down according to the fortunes of war.

Because we have had to pay a heavy price in economic terms, it does not seem unreasonable to say to the Government that when they no longer require some of the massive landholdings that they possess they should genuinely give back to the local community some of the benefit they have enjoyed from them. I believe that to be essential.

The dominant circular governing the return of land to the people who own it—in this case I have no doubt that the original owners are lost in antiquity—is circular 18/84 which contains the statement: Development by the Crown does not require planning permission. But Government Departments will consult local planning authorities before proceeding with development (including material changes of use) which would otherwise require planning permission. If that is the rule that governs the behaviour of Departments while they own the land, it is perfectly clear that when they decide to divest themselves of a piece of land they should be every bit as scrupulous about taking into account the feelings and opinions of the local planning authority. That is really what we are talking about.

I believe it to be improper—I have had arguments with the Department before about small packets of PSA land within my own constituency—for the Government to have frozen, by their use of large tracts of land for defence purposes, the opportunities that the local planning authorities have had to develop the area as a whole. When it suits the Government to get rid of the land, they unload it in a way that, in effect, makes it difficult for the local planners to have any direct control over the outcome, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham pointed out, if the matter is taken to an appeal the Secretary of State for the Environment is the appeal authority, having been responsible for offloading the land in the first place. That is a danger in principle of which I have considerable suspicion. It needs to be looked at again.

I am a great believer in frugal housekeeping by Government. It is entirely proper that the Government should administer their resources competently and that they should try to obtain the best return for the country that they can. However, this area of Kent is taking a large overspill population and accommodating it, and it deserves special consideration by the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham is absolutely right to say that, because this area is grappling with enormous difficulties caused by the Government's abandonment of the dockyard, there should be an examination of all the Ministry of Defence's land holdings by the two district councils and the county council, as well as of the land holdings which eventually will come to the Property Services Agency, rather than that there should be a piecemeal disposal of land on terms which would cut out the local planning authorities and prevent them from reaching the kind of decision that they would have reached had the land not been frozen for centuries.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he welcomes this proposition and that he will allow the local authorities rather than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to dispose of the planning consents on the Great Lines.

3.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on his success in securing a debate on a matter that is very dear to the hearts of his constituents. I congratulate him also upon having been able to summon such eloquent support from my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). This is a sensitive planning issue, and I come to it relatively new. My hon. Friend was a little unfair about my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I have seen nothing that suggests that he was in any way unsympathetic.

Great Lines is an area of some 48.5 acres of undeveloped land in Gillingham. I hope that I shall be forgiven, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I confine my remarks to those 48.5 acres rather than to the more extensive area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to it as an historic area. Indeed, its connection with Departments of State goes back more than 250 years. It was part of a much larger area, bought originally to form part of the protective bastions of Chatham dockyard.

With the formation and development of the Corps of Royal Engineers at Chatham, the Great Lines became part of its training area and was used until recently by the Royal School of Military Engineering at nearby Brompton barracks. When it became surplus to the Ministry of Defence requirements it was passed for disposal to the Property Services Agency.

Great Lines remains a predominent local landmark overlooking Chatham and it is dominated by the Chatham naval memorial. I should make it clear that the memorial is not included in the disposal plans. It is protected by a 999 year ground lease that is held by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The land is not designated as a public open space, but the public have rights of access across footpaths and over the years have been accustomed to use it as amenity land—for walking dogs, grazing horses, and so on. In April 1985 the Ministry of Defence decided to transfer this land to the Property Services Agency for disposal. Having done so, it is the PSA's responsibility to obtain the best price possible. That is normally done by putting the land on to the open market, with the benefit of any planning permission that can be obtained.

The background against which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton had to consider this matter was set out in a letter from Lord Trefgarne on 31 December 1985 to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. Lord Trefgarne said in the letter that he could understand the points that had been made, but the Property Services Agency had been instructed to dispose of the area known as the Great Lines. He continued: In the normal way, we would expect PSA to secure the highest achievable price for the land on the open market, and I understand that they are now considering with planning consultants how best to market the area. While I can understand the points which have been made about reserving the area as an open space for amenity and heritage reasons, I do not think it would be right for me to interfere in the normal disposal arrangements which are a matter for Sir George Young at the PSA. Moreover, there is a proper legal framework for deciding on development proposals, and I am sure that, if any planning application were to be submitted for development of the area, the most appropriate way for it to be considered is through the due planning processes, which, as you will appreciate, have been instituted specifically to guard against development which is against the public interest. We are proceeding through those due planning processes at present. It is an indication of the careful way in which the PSA has proceeded that, despite having had the land handed over to it in April 1985, the first planning application was made only in October of this year. The PSA's estate surveyors looked at the site and considered that part of the area had development potential. Therefore they invited private planning consultants to look at it again and to advise on the marketing of the land. Those consultants have confirmed that 15 acres of the site has development potential.

Mr. Rowe

We are clear about the procedures which are to be followed, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there are serious difficulties in circumstances where the whole of the planning and development of our area has been decided without being able to take into account any of the land that was required for defence purposes. Now it is up to the PSA and the Ministry of Defence to choose, at whatever moment they wish, to divest themselves of this land which has effectively been frozen over a very long time. The only person to whom the local residents can appeal, if they disapprove of any part of this piecemeal disposition of a huge landholding, is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the very agency trying to raise the largest price for the land. Will the Minister be kind enough to respond to that point?

Mr. Chope

I was going to respond to that point later, but perhaps I shall deal with it now. It is unfair to suggest that because I, as a Minister in the Department of the Environment responsible for the PSA, also belong to the same Department where the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the PSA and planning appeals, the Secretary of State cannot carry out these roles in accordance with his proper statutory duties. It is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be faced with having to determine a planning appeal in relation to this land that he is not involved in this discussion about the role of the PSA. He is at pains to separate his role as the Secretary of State responsible for planning appeals from his role as overlord of the PSA. It is easy to suggest that somehow we will be judges in our own cause on this matter if it gets to an appeal, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent that that is not so and that the due proprieties will be observed in the event of the matter going to appeal. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, before we get anywhere near thinking about the question of appeals, the matter should be considered by the local planning authority. Indeed, as I understand it, that is what is happening at the moment. I am a little worried by some of the suggestions tonight that Gillingham borough council, the planning authority, has already made up its mind about that.

The private planning consultants were invited to advise on the matter and they have advised that there is a development potential on some 15 acres of the site.

Mr. Couchman

It is no slur on their integrity at all, but the planning consultants who were engaged to undertake the appraisal of planning potential are also substantial estate agents who have been responsible for selling off a great deal of land on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. That was, perhaps, an unfortunate choice. The report has not been published and it is not available to me or to Gillingham borough council and the appraisal was obviously based on the consultants' considerable commercial knowledge within the area of development potential. I am a bit worried that someone from without the area was not brought in to do that planning consultation.

Mr. Chope

If the Property Services Agency invites planning consultants to assist it, it is more helpful for the agency to invite planning consultants who have a knowledge of the area. If one invites estate agents from some remote part of the country to advise upon land values and development potential in a particular part of Kent, they can be in no better position than the PSA. I would defend the decision to go to local planning consultants and I am sorry that my hon. Friend has criticisms of them.

I am not hiding behind the consultants' recommendations. They are only a factor to be taken into account. What they conclude—my hon. Friend has confirmed this during his remarks—is that there is some development potential on at least part of the site. My hon. Friend has referred to an area of 6 to 7 acres; the planning consultants are referring to about 15 acres. The site as a whole is some 48.5 acres. There may not be as much difference between the parties on that as the debate might have suggested.

Following the obtaining of the consultants' report, detailed discussions took place with the borough council. I am concerned that some of the comments made earlier might suggest that the PSA was riding roughshod over the local planning authority in this matter and was not consulting it.

Let me refer to a letter sent by the chief executive and town clerk of Gillingham to the district estate surveyor of the PSA on 25 June. He said:

The Borough Council have asked me to get in touch with you to open formal discussions on the future of the Great Lines and proposals for disposal, so that I can formally give you the Council's views in supplementation of the informal discussions we have already had. Since I am under instructions to report back to the next meeting of the Leisure Services Committee on 15 July, I would be grateful if a meeting could be arranged before then. Meetings did take place. A letter dated 27 June, some two days later, said:

I am writing to confirm the arrangements made by telephone … for you to come to this office … on Monday, 14th July, to discuss the Great Lines. I am grateful to you for coming over immediately on your return from leave, as it will enable me to report verbally to the meeting of my Committee the following day. From an early stage the PSA and its district surveyor, after seeing the report from the consultants, entered into discussions with the officers of the Gillingham borough council. A meeting took place on 23 July between the chief executive and the town clerk, Mr. Glyn Jones, and senior officials of the agency. As a result, the consultants were instructed to agree a planning application with the officers of the Gillingham borough council.

My hon. Friends will know that when a potential developer applies for planning permission or thinks about applying for planning permission, a lot of informal discussions take place. Such discussions took place in this instance and a planning application was duly submitted on 27 October. A further meeting took place on 3 December between a senior PSA official and the new chief executive and elected members of the council. That meeting was attended by the leaders of the three parties, the chairman of the leisure services committee, the chairman of the planning control committee, and the vice-chairman of the development committee. It was agreed at that meeting that a co-ordinated approach to the development options could be devised, and officials on both sides have been working on a revision to the planning application.

I am worried that my hon. Friends seem to be under the impression that the matter was already resolved one way, namely, that the planning application would be refused. As recently as that meeting on 3 December the Property Services Agency was invited to go away and consider a revised planning application. I understand that that application will be placed before the council at a meeting in February.

Because of what my hon. Friends have said, I am aware of the strong local feeling about the need to preserve the Great Lines. The current discussions about the planning proposals recognise that anxiety. If the current proposals were to be implemented, it would mean that development on the visually prominent area of some 30 acres would be restricted virtually for ever—certainly for the forseeable future. This would leave the area around the war memorial quite undisturbed.

The Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency have a commendable record for paying regard to their responsibilities for conserving Britain's heritage. As my hon. Friends have said, the preservation of Chatham's historic dockyard is an obvious example of that.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for the Environment have jointly set up a trust which has the important function of maintaining the extremely important historic buildings with a view to attracting visitors and potential users. Another example, perhaps less well known, is the preservation work at Fort Amherst. In 1983 the Ministry of Defence sold this part of the original Chatham dockyard fortifications to the Fort Amherst Lines Trust for preservation of the existing multi-level complex of moats, batteries, a redoubt, a bastion and, in particular, a remarkable interlinking tunnel system.

The present proposals must be seen against that background. Property Services Agency officials have been discussing proposals for the revised planning application and those proposals are designed to protect local conservation interests while at the same time producing the maximum financial benefit from the sale of the land. In this way I hope that a compromise can be reached. It could be reached at borough council level and that would satisfy the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton by enabling the local planning authority to decide this matter in the light of the interests of local people.

My hon. Friends cannot reasonably expect any person applying for planning permission to fetter his discretion to make an appeal in the event of that application being refused. That matter would have to be considered in the event of such a refusal. I am still hopeful that at the council meeting in February when the revised planning application is put forward a compromise agreement will be achieved.

If there is not any agreement and all the applications made by the Property Services Agency for development on any of this land are refused, notwithstanding that my hon. Friend said that some of it has development potential, the Property Services Agency will either have to appeal or consider selling the land on the open market without the benefit of any planning permission whatsoever.

Mr. Couchman

Can I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friend? This is a very important matter, as there are many hundreds of acres of Ministry of Defence land within the towns. I know that my hon. Friend has confined his remarks to the Great Lines, and that indeed was the subject of the debate, but the other land is related and linked and does impinge upon this application. Can I repeat my invitation to my hon. Friend, at his convenience, to come down to the Medway towns and see some of the Ministry of Defence land—because this will be an ongoing matter, with the Property Services Agency seeking to sell more and more land? It must be done in a cohesive, not a disjointed fashion.

Mr. Chope

Especially at this time of the year I am not in the habit of turning down invitations. I would be very happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the possible implementation of such a visit. Whether that could be arranged before the meeting of the council in February, I could not say. I have visited the area. There is no doubt that, as the Minister responsible for the Property Services Agency, I would benefit from seeing it at closer range and looking at some of the other potential planning issues which may arise.