§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this I louse do now adjourn—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
1.29 am§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)I welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to her maiden Adjournment debate and apologise for keeping hon. Members up at this late hour. However, we are debating an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. I should be interested to know if my hon. Friend's Department has yet received anything like the many hundreds of letters that I have received in the last few years on this issue.
In July 1985 many of my constituents were most dismayed to learn of the decision of the then Secretary of State for the Environment to grant outline planning permission for 475 houses on 35 acres of land at Birtenshaw farm. This decision went against the recommendations of the planning inspector, the council, the elected representatives, the local residents' committee and the many other parties who had objected at the public inquiry.
My predecessor, Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke, QC, had objected strongly to the land not being included in the green belt. I supported the objections of councillors to the proposed development, and had made these objections known to the council, the planning inspector, the then Secretary of State and to the other Ministers in the Department of the Environment. Indeed, Councillor Poulsom and I visited the then planning Minister in June 1984 to advise him on the great sensitivity of this site, which was the subject of one of a number of planning applications in the area.
The then planning Minister wrote to assure me that my objections would be carefully considered, and that he would notify me of his decision. It was unfortunate that when he did come to a decision which was to cause so much anguish to so many of my constituents he failed to notify me owing to what was said to be an oversight in his Department.
To understand people's feelings on this issue, my hon. Friend should appreciate the history. The land itself had been owned by the Ashworth family for many generations. On 12 July 1934, the Ashworth family entered into an agreement with the local council, Turton urban district council, to preserve the land as private open space for the benefit and amenity of the area.
In his report, the planning inspector said that the land is
unique in the area in that it provides the only significant relief from the urban development stretching northwards from Bolton … Moreover, it enhances the still semi-rural character and appearance of the area".He said:the proposed development would make Bradshaw and Bromley Cross very much less pleasant places in which to live".How can the Secretary of State differ from this conclusion when he has not even visited the site, which many regard as a local beauty spot? Further objections to the development were based on the very serious traffic congestion, the lack of school capacity, inadequate drainage, and Bolton council's calculations of existing land availability.Residents' feelings were so inflamed by the Secretary of State's decision to overturn the planning inspector's report 329 that a petition was signed by 3,500 people calling on the Prime Minister to prevent the development. I then took a delegation to hand this petition in to Downing street in September 1985.
Meanwhile, Bolton council decided to appeal to the High Court for a judicial review. Unfortunately, on 28 April this year, Bolton council learnt that it had lost its appeal to the High Court on the ground that the Minister had misdirected himself on the narrow question of land availability. But this was a mere technicality compared with people's feelings about the sanctity of the convenant. It was also felt by many residents that the council had failed at the public inquiry sufficiently to press the other four main objections relating to the covenant, traffic congestion, schools, and drainage, and they had not even been mentioned at the High Court hearing.
The developers are now appealing to the Secretary of State formally to revoke the covenant, and he has requested that representations should be made to him in writing without delay. A petition by local residents to preserve the land as open space in accordance with the Ashworth agreement has been signed by over 5,000 people, some of whom have travelled to London today. I call on the Secretary of State to pay heed to the demonstrated strength of local feeling. Whether or not he is advised that the 1934 covenant still has full legal force today, he should recognise that it has great and continuing moral force in the eyes of all the residents who have made their views so abundantly clear, not least on the Sunday before the general election, when 3,000 "Stop Barratts" campaigners turned out to demonstrate. Many thousands of people have bought properties and settled in the area believing in the sanctity of this covenant. How can the Secretary of State not uphold such a covenant when it clearly has the backing of so many thousands of local residents? I call on the Secretary of State to respect the wishes of the people of Bolton that Birtenshaw farm should remain as open land—one of the last pieces of open land before entering 20 miles of built-up Greater Manchester.
Since the public inquiry in 1985, circumstances have changed. The council has now revised its calculation of land availability and there is a new structure plan for the Secretary of State to consider. Without doubt, traffic conditions have worsened and schools in the constituency have been closed. Therefore, the Minister now has good reasons for refusing to lift the covenant in the interests of constituency and good planning.
What possible grounds can the Secretary of State have for ignoring the clearly expressed wishes of the residents if the allows the development? Surely, he should now take full account of the wishes of the people and their elected representatives, as well as the former owners of the land, and reconsider the decision of his predecessor in 1985, which I and those who know the area well, believe to have been mistaken.
I urge my hon. Friend most strongly to visit Birtenshaw farm to see for herself the importance of this local amenity. It has infuriated local residents that neither the former Secretary of State, nor any other Minister from his Department, could be bothered to visit the site before making the shock decision to overturn the inspector's report. We were pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) during the election, in his former capacity as the Minister responsible 330 for green belts, especially as he has such detailed and personal knowledge of the area and the history of the Ashworth family. I took that opportunity to hand him a petition signed by over 1,200 local residents, calling for the preservation of open land in the area. In this connection, if it would help the Minister to make up her mind to visit the site, I should be glad to make available to her a video showing the land in question, and the general area of Bradshaw and Bromley Cross, which has been so affected by development over the years.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this case has been the way in which the decision appears to have been made. It would appear that the civil servants in the Department have taken it upon themselves to make decisions in such an important matter in the name of the Secretary of State, but without even bothering to inform him. Is that really true? Can the Minister enlighten me as to whether the Department now runs on the basis of "Yes, Civil Servant," as the Secretary of State nods his head to everything that he finds has been done in his name?
I was told that it was an "oversight" that caused the Minister to fail even to inform me of his decision. I first heard of his decision when I was at the Harwood rose show in my constituency on the Saturday morning after letters from the civil servant in Manchester had gone out to local objectors. This may have been a mere discourtesy to fail to inform me, but I see it as symptomatic of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this decision was made. When I demanded to see the Minister then responsible for planning on my return to Westminster, he at first refused to see me. After I stated that I intended to call publicly for his dismissal, he agreed to see me, but clearly was unaware of the facts, and could not give answers to my questions as to why the planning inspector's report had been overturned. His papers were poor-quality facsimiles transmitted down to London from Manchester, and it was only later that he was able to supply me with clear copies.
Local councillors have drawn the matter to the attention of the local ombudsman on the ground that the council had failed to present its case adequately. I have repeatedly requested the parliamentary ombudsman to take this matter as a clear case of maladministration. I have established that the decision letter was sent out from Manchester on the same day that the Minister in London was supposed to have given his approval. Did he really know what he was doing? Or was he given a few hundred pieces of paper to sign, with this one tucked away in the middle?
I have further established that this was no routine decision. In the previous year, only 20 planning appeals had been decided contrary to the inspector's recommendation, only six had involved residential developments, and only one was for more than 300 houses. It was hardly a decision at which the Minister could have decided that he did not need to look.
My hon. Friend may think that I am asking too many difficult questions, but I must remind her that 3,000 demonstrated against this decision on the final Sunday before the general election. Previous attempts to build on this land were refused, but it did not escape attention that in this case, the developers were a well-known national firm. Many local people have taken the view, which I reject, that this had in some way influenced the decision.
The people of Bolton now want a clear statement of the Government's thoughts on this matter. Perhaps Ministers feel under pressure to secure more building land, but other 331 land is available in Bolton, including derelict land in need of redevelopment. Why not respect the wishes of the people of Bradshaw and Bromley Cross that Birtenshaw farm should remain as open land in perpetuity? That is the question that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to answer.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind welcome. I appreciate his good wishes.
I know that the matter raised by my hon. Friend is one which deeply concerns many of his constituents in the Bradshaw and Bromley Cross areas of north Bolton. They have for long regarded the 35 acres of Birtenshaw farm, which lies alongside Turton road, as a valuable last remaining break in the development which would otherwise link their two communities. They regard the stretch of open farmland as an important local amenity which should not be lost to development. They have also expressed fears about the extra traffic which they say the development would put on to local roads and the strain on schools and other local services which they fear might result.
My hon. Friend has on several occasions written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors, and also to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, about the nature of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for housing development at Birtenshaw farm and about the procedures which led to that decision. He has been given assurances that the matter was dealt with entirely in accordance with the Department's normal procedures.
The covenant on the land is an entirely separate issue from the planning appeal. It is the matter which is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision. It was mentioned during the course of the appeal inquiry but was not discussed there.
Under the covenant, the owners undertook to retain the land as a private open space. With the completion of recent High Court action on their planning appeal, Barratts has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use the power available to him to discharge the restriction imposed by the covenant. He is able to do so if he is satisfied that the restriction is inconsistent with the proper planning or development of the area comprising the land.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Bolton borough council for its views on the request to discharge the covenant. He will exchange its representations with the applicants. He will approach his decision with an open mind and reach it after a thorough consideration of all the relevant facts. It would not be right in the circumstances for him to discuss the case with only one of the parties, or even to visit the site in company with any of them. It is necessary, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, that all representations made to him can be made available for comment to the principal parties—Bolton borough council and Barratt. They should therefore be in writing or, if in the form of a video presentation, be made available also to the other party.
The Secretary of State will of course take account of the views expressed by my hon. Friend tonight. I cannot express any view about what the outcome might be or otherwise comment on the merits of the matter.
332 It may help the House if I say that the case came to the Secretary of State in July 1984 as an appeal by Barratts Ltd. against the decision of Bolton borough council to refuse planning permission for the construction of 475 houses and bungalows on the land. Because it was for a large development, the appeal was not one for decision by an inspector but fell to be decided by the Secretary of State.
A local inquiry was held in February 1985 and the inspector reported to the Secretary of State in March recommending that the appeal be dismissed. The Secretary of State did not accept the inspector's recommendation and the decision that he gave on 18 July 1985 allowed the appeal and granted outline planning permission for the development.
There is no particular significance in the fact that the decision was contrary to the inspector's recommendation. Most planning appeal decisions do follow the recommendation, but there is always a small proportion where the decision departs from it. This was one such case. Indeed there would be no point in putting cases to Ministers if they were not free to disagree.
The decision to allow this appeal was of course made long before my appointment to the Department. I understand, however, that it was taken by the appropriate Minister in the light of all the evidence presented at the inquiry and having regard to Government policy for housing land set out in the relevant circular. The decision-making process was entirely in accord with the Department's normal practice; the Minister was fully aware of all the facts, and the decision was his.
Nor was there any significance in the fact that the promise to inform my hon. Friend of the decision was not fulfilled. Through an oversight, the correspondence recording this promise had not been attached to the appropriate file. This was most unfortunate and Ministers have expressed their apologies to my hon. Friend for the failure in this matter. I must emphasise, however, that it was a simple error and was in no way an attempt to hide the decision; nor did it suggest anything underhand or a. desire to bypass normal Departmental procedures. As a result of that failure, our procedures have been strengthened to ensure that a similar failure to observe the proper courtesies does not recur.
The decision was in fact taken some days before the formal letters were ready for issue. They were prepared in the Department's Manchester office and despatched from there. That is why a copy had to be telegraphed to the Minister when my hon. Friend unexpectedly raised the matter with him.
The decision to allow the appeal was challenged by Bolton borough council, but was upheld in the High Court last April. The judge said that he was satisfed that the Secretary of State took proper account of proposed alterations to the structure plan for Greater Manchester, that he gave adequate reasons for his decision and that he and the inspector had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant circulars. The planning permission granted by the appeal decision therefore still stands. There are no further procedures for giving it further reconsideration.
As for the disquiet of local residents, it should be remembered that those responsible for preparing decisions on planning appeals must bear in mind the fundamental principle that the onus normally rests with the planning authority to show good reasons why permission should not be given, and that it is not for a developer to show why 333 it should. Planning authorities were advised by the Government in DOE circular 22/80 that they should always grant planning permission, having regard to all material circumstances, unless there were sound and clear-cut reasons for refusal.
Proposals for housing development are considered additionally in the light of the Government's policy set out in DOE circular 15/84, "Land for Housing". This asks authorities to ensure that at all times sufficient housing land is, or will become, available to provide a five years' supply when measured against the requirements of the development plan for the area.
If a five years' supply is not available, the circular says that there should be a presumption in favour of granting permission for housing, except where there are clear planning objections which in the circumstances of the case outweigh the need to make the land available for housing.
The circular says that the relevant factors which might outweigh the presumption should be clear from the development plan, and goes on to give examples. Among these are that the land is in a green belt or a national park, or area of outstanding natural beauty; that other land of lower agricultural or landscape quality is available; or that essential infrastructure is absent or inadequate.
In the case of Birtenshaw farm, the inquiry evidence showed that, on the basis of the method outlined in the Department's circular, there was a very substantial shortfall in the borough's housing land supply, amounting 334 to land for at least 1,664 units. The presumption which the circular gave to granting planning permission therefore applied to the appeal site. The land was not in a green belt and was of low agricultural value.
Although objections on grounds of inadequate infrastructure—such as highways, schools and drainage—loomed large in the eyes of local residents, they lacked support fom the local authorities. In the inspector's view, they failed to stand up on their own.
As my hon. Friend said, the inspector nevertheless noted that the site was the only significant relief from urban development along Turton road north of Bolton. He thought that its suburbanisation would seriously diminish the semi-rural character and appearance of the area and would make Bradshaw and Bromley Cross less pleasant places in which to live.
The inspector's report was carefully considered in the light of the Department's published policies, and the decision not to accept his recommendation was taken by the responsible Minister. That decision accepted that development would detract from the present character and appearance of the area. However, because of the housing land shortfall, there was a presumption in favour of granting permission, and the Minister could not agree that the effect of the development on Bradshaw and Bromley Cross would justify preventing the site from making good some of the housing land shortfall.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.