Campions Wood (Hansard, 17 January 1996)

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
I suppose I should begin by apologising to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), for keeping him up so late. As some small consolation, I should tell him that the first time I had an Adjournment debate in the early 1970s, it came on at about 4 am. At least this is a comparatively civilised hour.
It is almost 40 years since the problem that I wish to raise began, because it was on 13 November 1956 that permission to extract clay and associated materials from a 65 acre site in fields on the edge of the mining village of Cheslyn Hay was granted. That site came to be known as the Campions Wood site, hence the title of the debate.
In 1970, shortly before I was elected to the House to represent that village and the rest of my then constituency of Cannock, the Minister of Housing and Local Government—who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the late Anthony Greenwood—on the recommendation of an inspector gave planning permission on appeal for a housing development right up to the boundary of this land after Cannock district council had refused planning permission.
The developer soon began to build his houses, and nice houses they were. It seems that the original owners moved in in ignorance of the earlier planning permission, and it does not seem to have been found in the searches that were conducted by their solicitors. There was no real problem until 1993. There had been some small-scale excavations that the county council was told by its legal advisers were probably of a sufficient scale to maintain the permission.
In 1993, prospecting began in earnest and one week in July 1995 operations began and a great bund some 6 m high was constructed less than 5 m from the gardens of my constituents. The House can imagine the appalling problems that they have faced as a result. I have been inundated with letters over the past six months or so, a great many of which have been received on my fax machine over the past 24 to 48 hours since it became widely known that I had secured this debate. I shall not quote from all of them but will quote merely from one that lists the problems that are faced by a constituent and his neighbours.
The letter states that there is no respite from noise or dirt, that windows can no longer be opened for any length of time, that houses and cars are continually covered by dust and dirt, that the immediate environment has been ruined and that there is severe blight on properties. Obviously, people wish to sell their houses to get away from that ravaged environment, but nobody wants to buy the houses. Residents are worried by the potential for accidents created by the enormous pit that is opening just behind their garden fences. It is an accident waiting to happen", as my constituent says in his letter. The mud must be seen to be believed. The aspect to the village from the south has been ruined. The whole village has been blighted.
862 Residents believe, and I understand why, that only an end to the quarrying and subsequent landscaping can make the site acceptable. [Interruption.] I am relieved that my hon. Friends have finished their conversation. Residents have appealed to the county council to exercise its powers. It has begun negotiations, but it feels that it is in a dilemma. After all, it can in no sense be blamed for what has happened, which I accept.
The council has asked me therefore to appeal, just as my constituents have, to my hon. Friend the Minister. Over the past few months, he and I have exchanged a number of letters. He has referred me to the Environment Act 1995, which requires planning authorities to review planning permissions. This site does fall in the first category to be reviewed, but, even if the council lists it by the end of this month, the earliest that it can require the operator to submit to any new scheme of conditions is 1 February 1997. Even then, any conditions imposed on the site should not, I am told, prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the site or processing operation, or the asset value. There is no certainty therefore that, even if they take that route, my constituents will be relieved. It is certain that they will not be relieved for at least another year, even if everything falls into place.
The district council is powerless because it has no jurisdiction in the matter. The county council is unwilling immediately to revoke permission because of the liability for compensation, which is understandable. It is pursuing an alternative of negotiating, but the owner, Dr. Roberts, is often at sea—he is a medical doctor and serves, I believe, on a Cunard ship. It is difficult to contact him or his representatives. A third party, I understand, has now bought a portion of the site and it has been difficult to trace that party.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he would be willing to receive a delegation from the county council. He said that it might prejudice the Secretary of State's discretion in the event of any appeal, so he could not do so. Meanwhile, my constituents continue to suffer—the blight continues. All the appalling consequences of the quarrying—to which I referred when I quoted the letter—persist.
In these circumstances, and bearing it in mind that the houses are there only because a previous Minister who was not in this Government or even in the Conservative party granted permission, there is a moral obligation on the Government. I understand the constraints to which my hon. Friend referred in his correspondence. For the reasons to which I have alluded, this is in no sense a criticism of him or of the Government; it is a plea on behalf of some hard-pressed constituents. The debate is, I venture to suggest, a classic illustration of the worth of Adjournment debates, where a Member of Parliament can bring such concerns to the Floor of the House.
I should like to make two suggestions to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will either allow me to bring a group of residents to see him so that he can discuss with them their fears and worries and try to find a way forward or, better still, convene a meeting, to which representatives of the county council, the developer and residents would be invited with me, to discuss a way forward.
A way forward must be found. We cannot allow the lives of those people to be blighted in this way. We cannot allow children to grow up in the appalling atmosphere of 863 dust, dirt and danger. The quarrying could continue for another decade, well into the next century. Children could grow up never knowing anything other than a large bund at the end of the garden with an enormous hole beyond that, with all the attendant dirt, dust and danger. When the quarrying ends, what will happen about filling in the hole?
There is a problem and it must be tackled. I appeal to my hon. Friend to use his well-known sympathy and considerable ingenuity to help me to find a way forward.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)
I congratulate—rather than thank—my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on landing this problem on my plate at this hour. As he said, perhaps I should be thankful that it is not 4 o'clock in the morning.
My hon. Friend has raised a considerable problem. The Government have recognised both it and the passions and concerns that it has aroused. That is why we responded significantly with primary legislation. He is aware that we have reformed the old quarry permissions and that considerable progress has been made. The Environment Act 1995 has given the local planning authority wide environmental powers. He knows that I cannot refer to the details of the case in question, but the planning authority has the power to impose environmental constraints upon working sites.
As my hon. Friend said, 31 January is the date by which the list of sites must be published and I expect the site in question to be included. An application must be made for new conditions and a date must be specified. I shall check whether it is possible for that date to be brought forward from 1 February next year, which was suggested by my hon. Friend.
In essence, my hon. Friend made one suggestion—that I act as a negotiator. I listened carefully, but I do not know whether he means between all sides.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I made two suggestions—first, that my hon. Friend should allow me to bring a deputation of residents to meet him, and secondly—this is preferable—that he convenes a meeting with representatives of the county, the developer and residents, accompanied by me, to try to find a way forward.

§ Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. He is aware that his first suggestion is not 864 really an option. It could cause a problem if there were an appeal because I, as a representative of the Department and the Government, would have listened to only one side of the argument. After this debate, I shall reflect on his second suggestion. Although it appears to be fraught with difficulty, it has possibilities.
The best way to proceed is for the county council to review the permission under the new legislation. It is an opportunity to ensure that it conforms to modern conditions. It would involve neither revocation nor payment of compensation. It would remove many of the difficulties, such as dirt and noise, referred to by my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend suggested in some of the correspondence, it would be possible for Staffordshire county council to revoke the permission. If it did that, it would have to pay compensation, as my hon. Friend said. He suggested that the Secretary of State should revoke the permission. That could happen only in absolutely exceptional circumstances, and I fail at this stage to consider the circumstances of this case exceptional. Even if the circumstances were exceptional sufficiently for the Secretary of State to revoke the permission, the county council would still have to bear the compensation by law. There is no choice.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
If that is, indeed, the case and if the other avenues that I have suggested came to a dead end, my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State would lose nothing by treating the case as exceptional—as it properly is—and revoking the permission.

§ Sir Paul Beresford
I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the case is exceptional. There are such cases up and down the country that have been carefully considered. That is why the Government required in the Environment Act 1995 an updating of the environmental conditions for the working of quarries.
I shall however take away the two points that my hon. Friend has made and consider them again. First, I shall see whether there is any way in which the date may be moved forward. Secondly, I shall consider whether there is any way in which some form of arbitration and negotiation between the various parties can be initiated in order to find mutually agreed, environmentally acceptable conditions, which will help the people and at the same time allow the quarry to be worked.