Gamston Airfield, Nottinghamshire (Hansard, 16 February 1993)

§ Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)

I am glad that at this late hour I am joined by many hon. Friends, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is a Nottinghamshire Member.

Gamston airfield is a small, privately owned airfield in the Newark constituency. It is about one and half miles from the major county town of Retford. It is surrounded by several quiet villages, each with 100 or so inhabitants. Since 1967, the airfield has been used for light aircraft on business. No club flying and no tuition was ever permitted. The permitted weight was raised to 5,700 kilos in 1979 and again in 1987 to 12,500 kilos. That was still the weight of a small, twin-engined executive business plane.

In the granting of each consent, Bassetlaw district council made specific reference to the fact that in the district plan for east Bassetlaw, Gamston was designed as a conservation area. Since the increase in permitted weight in 1987, there has been an awareness of some nuisance. However, the limit of flying hours to between 6.30 am and 9 pm Mondays to Fridays, and 8 am to 9 pm Saturdays and Sundays, together with the limit of 10 take-offs and landings, meant that the position was tolerable.

On 29 January last the owner of the airfield applied to the district council to amend the conditions of the 1987 consent. That application was to introduce flight training for professional and private commercial purposes, pleasure flying and charter flights. The weight limit was to be increased to 50,000 kilos—a fourfold increase of the previous limit of a few years past. There were to be an additional 20 aircraft movements a week outside the operational hours. Those hours were to be extended to 10 pm Mondays to Fridays and 9 pm Saturdays and Sundays.

The clear implication to the local residents—I make no personal judgment on it—was that the application paved the way to Gamston becoming a regional airport. The incremental process over the years has certainly given them grounds for believing that. One can understand the anxiety of local residents in not only the village of Gamston but all the surrounding villages and much of the residential area of Retford, over which many of the flights would pass, particularly when descending.

However, my purpose is not to list the arguments why planning permission should or should not be granted; that is not for me and it is not for my hon. Friend the Minister who will reply. I am here to argue that the way in which the application was determined by the local council left a great deal to be desired. I argue that the matter has wider effects beyond the immediate locality.

I alerted the then Secretary of State to the widespread local concern on 5 March 1992. I understand that the local authority received more than 200 letters of objection. The Nottingham office of the Department of the Environment was clearly concerned and alarmed at the extent of those objections. Before the district council could deal with the application the Department issued an article 14 direction. The effect of this was that, although the council could hear the application, it would not implement it, or allow it to be implemented and put into effect, until the direction was withdrawn.

298 I come now to the first point of grave concern about the handling of this contentious application. On 16 December last the planning sub-committee of the council's development services committee met to consider the application formally. Despite the contentious nature of the application, despite the existence of the article 14 direction, despite the huge local implications of a much larger airport, the council left the matter to a sub-committee. The full committee—let alone the full council, where councillors could have had a proper say and a proper vote—played no part at all. The matter was left to a small group of 10 people, three of whom, including the leader of the council, were ex-offico members.

On the day of decision, following the discussion, all the Retford-based councillors, including members of the majority Labour party, voted against the application. Five councillors—all of them from an area away from Retford: the Worksop area—voted in favour. That meant a tie in the sub-committee. The Worksop-based chairman, who had already voted in favour of the application, used his casting vote, and the matter was passed. What a way, irrevocably and without appeal, to change the face of an area and disrupt the lives of thousands of people for ever.

During the discussion the chairman said that the sub-committee had had the benefit of two expert reports suggesting that there would be no adverse effects if the application were granted. A representative of one of the expert companies sat at the table with the councillors and participated throughout the discussion of the agenda item. The committee knew that Gamston parish council had commissioned another expert report, but that council's expert was refused permission to speak. The parish council chairman was given a few minutes to state his objections. So that decision was reached not only without the full council's having its say but also without the admission of expert evidence that would be contrary to the majority's preconceived conclusion on the application. Half of the sub-committee, therefore, approached the application with totally closed minds.

Immediately this travesty took place I protested to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 December and 4 January, urging that, in view of the way in which the decision had been made, he should not withdraw his article 14 direction. I was saddened and, indeed, astonished to receive on 27 January from the Minister who is to reply tonight a response declining my request, on the ground that the council had obtained specialist advice. I assume that the council had not told my hon. Friend that there was in existence equally eminent specialist advice giving the council a contrary opinion. Did my hon. Friend, when he wrote to me, know of this contrary advice? If so, perhaps he will explain why he did not refer to it in his letter. Legal moves to apply for a judicial review of the decision are already under way, and I do not ask my hon. Friend to make any comment on those. The legal representatives were amazed when they heard that the article 14 direction had been lifted. I hope that the local people will not have to go to the expense of a judicial review and that, at the least, the Minister will explain the grounds on which he took that decision.

I was saddened in reading the Minister's response to note that, because there was already an existing airfield in operation, there was in this case no more than local impact involved. He mentioned that, almost by definition, any airfield activity may be regarded as having more than local impact, and I agree with him.

299 I stress that my object today is not to list the reasons why planning should or should not be granted. I am drawing attention to the cavalier way in which local objections were dealt with locally and to stress why the matter should proceed to a public inquiry. No environmental impact assessment was called for by the district council before it made its decision. The high-minded intentions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ring hollow in the ears of some of my constituents.

The application gives cause for concern over a much wider area than that of the airfield. I remind the House that it would involve a fourfold increase in aircraft weight. It would mean that charter aircraft the size of early versions of the Boeing 737 would be descending rapidly over houses in Retford at below 200 ft., falling to 100 ft. over Ordsall and to almost ground level when passing over the village of Eaton.

The end of the runway is only 200 yds. from the A1, which is shortly to be upgraded to motorway standard. A whole range of permitted flying activity must have adverse effects over a much wider range and area than has been the case previously.

I urge my hon. Friend not to be content to leave this major decision to a sub-committee and the casting vote of its chairman. That is unsatisfactory. I urge the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend to call in the application before it is too late. Let us have a proper public inquiry, with a full environmental impact assessment. No development of such magnitude and importance should occur anywhere without a public inquiry, and, on behalf of my constituents, I urge the Government to ensure that a public inquiry is held in this case.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) raised issues of concern to his constituents and himself. He dealt with two main issues, and I will deal with both of them.

The first was about the way in which the planning application before the district council was dealt with. The second—they were clearly related issues, according to the way in which he argued them—was that, partly as a consequence of the way in which, he claimed, the district council had dealt with the application and partly for broader reasons, the application should be called in.

I will deal first with the way in which the application was considered by the local planning authority.

If a local planning authority in any way conducts itself not in accord with the law or with its statutory responsibilities, the Secretary of State does not act as a court of appeal. A planning permission which is granted by a local planning authority is a valid planning permission until it is challenged and deemed to be otherwise by the courts.

I appreciate that, because of local controversy, many of the residents who objected to the proposal attended the meeting on 16 December of the planning sub-committee of Bassetlaw district council when the application was formally considered. Subsequently the Secretary of State and the Department received letters complaining about the way in which the meeting was conducted. It was alleged that the chairman was not impartial and that the meeting was not conducted in a democratic manner, especially in 300 that the council's consultants were allowed to present their views, but the objectors' consultants were denied any opportunity to challenge the basis of their findings or to present contrary views. The use by the chairman of his casting vote, when members were evenly divided over the application, was also criticised.

While I appreciate the concerns of the local people who feel that their views have not been fully and fairly considered, those are not of themselves matters for the Secretary of State to consider. If any person believes that there has been maladministration by the council, that the council has not acted in accordance with its statutory powers, or that other matters warrant further investigation, that person may wish to consider reference to the local ombudsman or to seek judicial review. Either route is available.

My hon. Friend has said that it is possible that some local people will wish to consider judicial review. That is entirely a matter for them to take forward, if they so desire. But it is not for the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to put himself into the position of the court in those matters.

The second concern of my hon. Friend is that, largely because of local controversy and other concerns, the application ought to be called in. Because of the representations by my hon. Friend and the way in which he argued his case to Ministers, we were aware of local concerns. In addition to the forceful representations made by my hon. Friend, and the objections of large numbers of local people—about 120 objections were received by the Secretary of State requesting that the application be called in—the matter was given careful consideration.

If people feel that their legitimate concerns and interests have not been taken fully into account or, worse, have been ignored by the local planning authority, it is understandable that they turn to the Secretary of State and press him to use his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to intervene by calling in the application for his own determination.

However, it is important to explain that Parliament has made it clear that planning is essentially a local matter. The Act provides for applications for planning permission to be made to the local planning authority, and for that authority to determine them. Local planning authorities every day have to determine sizeable applications, and often applications which involve local controversy. That is a duty which Parliament has placed upon local planning authorities. The vast majority of applications are dealt with in that way.

About 532,000 applications were made in 1990–91 and the figure for 1991–92 was 511,000. Only 132 were called in in 1990–91 and, in the subsequent year, only 140. That gives some indication to the House of how sparingly the Secretary of State exercises his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to intervene by calling in applications for his determination. Of those 132 and 140, less than one fortieth of 1 per cent. were called in for determination by him.

My right hon. Friend and I believe that it is wrong to interfere with the jurisdiction of the local planning authority unless it is clearly necessary to do so. Our policy on calling in planning applications, therefore, continues to be very selective. Each case must, of course, be considered on its merits, but my right hon. Friend will generally only call in planning applications if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need 301 to be decided by the Secretary of State, rather than at local level. We have given as examples of cases where call in may be considered those development proposals which could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, those which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of national security or of foreign Governments are involved.

I assure the House and my hon. Friend that we considered carefully whether to call in the case. The decision not to intervene was taken only after careful consideration of the issues related, as well as all the representations received, including that from my hon. Friend.

Having regard to all the issues, we concluded that the proposed development did not raise planning issues of more than local significance, or issues that needed to be 302 decided by the Secretary of State, and that it was right to leave the local planning authority to determine the application. The power is exercised by the Secretary of State, and if any party feels that he has not exercised his discretion in accordance with the powers that Parliament has given to him, it is possible for any person who feels aggrieved to seek to refer that matter to the court by way of judicial review.

We have considered the matter extremely carefully. We have already decided not to call in the planning application. As far as Ministers are concerned, that is where the matter rests. If any individual or individuals feel concerned, either about the way in which the local planning authority has determined the planning application, or the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his statutory powers to decide not to call in the application, those are matters that they will have to refer to the courts.