HC Deb 11 June 1997 vol 295 cc1116-25 1.30 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)

I welcome you to your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first speech that I have made in the new Parliament and therefore it is the first opportunity for me to congratulate you and wish you well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and wish her well. She is certainly earning her money, because this is the second debate to which she has had to reply today.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise concerns about recent events at Whitley park. What has happened there shows the need urgently and significantly to strengthen existing environmental protection measures.

My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the Wakefield constituency was radically changed at the general election and now includes the two Kirklees wards of Kirkburton and Denby Dale, which were previously within the Dewsbury constituency. Whitley park is situated within the Kirkburton ward, between Huddersfield and Wakefield, to the west of the village of Grange Moor and to the north east of the village of Lepton. It is an area of privately owned land that contains woodland, copses and open fields. During my teens, I had a friend who lived on a farm in Grange Moor and we regularly roamed around the Whitley park area. I therefore share the very high regard of local people for its value as an outstanding local beauty spot. I also share the concern about the recent destruction of several copses within the park and understand the anger and outrage that have united local people in the Lepton and Grange Moor areas.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the land concerned is owned by a company called Elliotts Bricks Ltd. It is based in Lepton and is involved in the production of facing and engineering bricks. I understand that, over recent years, it has bought a considerable amount of the local green belt with the longer-term intention of mining clay through opencast methods.

In the short time that I have represented the Lepton area, I have received an almost constant stream of complaints about the company's activities, most recently concerning the burning of wool sludge. I gather that these representations are nothing out of the ordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has constituents in nearby Kirkheaton who have raised concerns about the company. My hon. Friend was quoted in the Huddersfield Examiner on 3 April as saying: Elliotts have a long history of activities which local people have objected to very strongly. As my hon. Friend will recall, two years ago local communities took great exception to Elliotts stripping natural vegetation on four acres of land that it owned at Lepton common. I understand that, in doing so, it had destroyed some active badger setts. I want briefly to quote press coverage at the time. On 2 June 1995, the Huddersfield District Chronicle reported that a wildlife haven had been destroyed and said: Bulldozers have torn through a wildlife oasis that has been on maps for more than 1,000 years. Outraged villagers watched helplessly as bulldozers ploughed into Lepton Common … on Sunday morning. Vegetation left in their wake was torched. Four-acres of gorse bushes—home to badgers, a vixen and four cubs, rabbits and numerous birds—was destroyed. On Saturday 10 June, the Huddersfield Examiner talked about The rape of Lepton Common". The most recent damage caused by Elliotts occurred at Whitley park over the Easter period, against a background of strenuous protests by concerned local residents. I want to pay particular tribute to those involved for drawing attention to what was happening and for their vigorous attempts to stop it. In particular, I want to mention the efforts of a local parish councillor, Roy Dobson, whose vigilance led to the company's intentions being anticipated early on the morning of Easter Tuesday, 1 April. Mr. Dobson, who lives nearby, spotted a bulldozer in the park and alerted local residents, who arrived on the scene as the driver started ripping up one of the copses within the park. Mr. Dobson was supported by other local residents, including Mr. Robert Gunn, Mr. Mike Greethan and local Kirklees councillors, Peter Sykes, Eileen Blunt and Mel Munday—representing, incidentally, all three main political parties on the local authority.

After the first copse had been partially cleared of vegetation, the driver was persuaded to stop to allow an investigation of the claim that there were active badger setts in the area being cleared. I understand that an agreement was reached for the local residents and the company separately to consult two different badger experts prior to any resumption of clearance work. In addition to myself, the head of planning services for Kirklees council, Mr. Keith Faragher, paid an urgent visit to the site to consider any steps that the local authority might be able to take. I pay tribute to his willingness to turn out over a bank holiday weekend. The fact that he found himself effectively powerless to prevent the destruction is a key issue, to which I shall come later.

After the work was halted, local residents were given to understand that they would meet representatives of Elliotts the following day to discuss evidence of badger activity, but the company cancelled the meeting on the ground that its experts had not had the opportunity to visit the site. Residents were then advised that bulldozing would be resumed on the Thursday afternoon of that week. The local residents attempted to stand in front of the bulldozers and to open their doors, but it was to no avail—within three hours, three circular copses, well-loved features of the Whitley park estate for at least 100 years, had been destroyed. The company set the freshly dug peat mounds on fire, with burning hay bales tossed on to the remaining vegetation.

Although I understand that there is no positive proof of active badger setts in the immediate vicinity, the copses involved—primarily populated by rhododendrons—provided cover for a variety of birds and other wildlife. The indiscriminate destruction both removed that habitat and killed some of its resident wildlife, in particular rabbits.

I realise that there are rules about using photographs in debates, but I want to pass to my hon. Friend the Minister some photographs showing before-and-after scenes of the site. They illustrate, in a far more realistic way than I can, what really happened. I hope that she will look at those photographs in detail.

The owners of the land eventually made a statement to the local press suggesting that their actions formed part of a "comprehensive whole farm plan" based on advice that the rhododendrons should be cleared. I am aware that such plants sometimes require control, in particular where there are grazing animals, but there can be no justification for the indiscriminate destruction at Whitley park over the Easter period. I look to the new Government to ensure that such irresponsible actions by landowners are not permitted in law in future.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend's Department has announced a review of existing hedgerow protection, especially as I understand that the new hedgerow regulations of 1 June have made no difference to existing powers to restrain such actions. Will the Minister look at the weakness of existing legislation as evidenced in this case? I would welcome her comments on the apparent inconsistencies in whether vegetation within a copse where trees are subject to a tree preservation order is protected in law.

In a ruling some years ago, Lord Denning determined that the site of a wood—undergrowth, seedlings, plants, and so on—is protected, not just individual trees. The local authority, however, has advised me that, although the trees within the copses concerned have been protected by a tree preservation order since 1950, because they are defined as group G2 containing beech and sycamore, reference to the definition of a tree in woodland as per Lord Denning's decision is not relevant. It also said that the plant material destroyed was not trees but mainly rhododendrons, which clearly has a bearing on any approach that might be taken to protect such copses.

I recognise that, despite their attractiveness, especially at this time of year, rhododendrons are regarded by some as an invasive weed. I understand the need to exercise control, particularly if their growth suppresses natural tree regeneration, but such control should be exercised by on-going and sensitive removal of the vegetation concerned, not by what the local parish council chairman described as "environmental vandalism". Even if the case for removing such vegetation is accepted, there must be controls to prevent the indiscriminate bulldozing witnessed at Whitley park, and those controls appear to be lacking.

I should also welcome the Minister's thoughts on the relevance of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to what has happened at Whitley park. That legislation makes it an offence intentionally to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built. Given that the destruction took place in early April, when it was presumably known that birds were likely to be nesting within the sites in question—I have pictures that show that nests were destroyed—is the Minister satisfied that the Act has sufficient powers to protect wildlife in such circumstances and that the enforcement of those powers is sufficiently understood by those responsible?

The police were involved at Whitley park. They were called by Elliotts to ensure public safety and public order, but I strongly suspect that the officers concerned were not aware of their possible role in enforcing the 1981 legislation in such cases.

The Minister will accept fully the reasons for the public outcry over what happened recently at Whitley park. Local people do not want to prevent proper management of the land in question, if it is done in an environmentally responsible way. That has not been the case, however, and the wanton destruction witnessed at Easter and two years earlier is unacceptable.

My constituents feel that, if such action is not illegal, environmental protection laws leave a great deal to be desired. I appreciate that the problem I have described is complex, but I hope that the Minister can offer some assurances that important lessons will be learned from those events and that action will be taken to prevent a repetition.

1.43 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I represented the area that he describes and now represents when I was elected to the House. It is a beautiful part of the country which moves from constituency to constituency. The Leader of the House represented it for three elections. We have therefore all shared that part of the constituency and are familiar with the company which often acts ruthlessly and tends to destroy the environment. A few years ago in Kirkheaton, there was a large campaign to stop mining—the company wanted to take out a whole hillside and destroy the natural environment.

I am a great exponent in the House of Britain's business success and am impressed by the work of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on behalf of tomorrow's companies. Although hon. Members want to promote tomorrow's companies, Elliotts Bricks is one of yesterday's companies, with which it is difficult to have a dialogue. The rules of tomorrow's companies include looking after stakeholders, employees, shareholders, the supply chain, customers and, most of all, the community in which the business sits. I appeal to that company, which refuses to speak to local Members of Parliament, local authorities or local communities, to open up a dialogue.

It cannot be right for companies to treat the English countryside as though they own it lock, stock and barrel. The environment is simply in trust for a short time to those who own it. It is not owned in the full sense of ownership; it is only on loan, whatever our relationship with it. I wish to share with the House my dismay at the destruction that has taken place around that site by a company that does not feel bound by the normal laws of human behaviour. If our laws cannot prevent the destruction of what I consider to be historic green belt land, there must be something wrong with the law. I hope that, under the new Labour Government, we shall see real changes in terms of protecting the English countryside through green belt legislation and other protective measures, because it is a resource for us all to share.

The company in question is in the minority. Most companies, landowners and farmers preserve our countryside and heritage, but a few seem to go about their business ruthlessly and suffer no penalties. We must have rules, regulations and legislation that get the balance right and deter people from doing what is only too often witnessed when a ruthless operator goes in with heavy machinery. These days, the most ghastly earth-moving equipment can do enormous damage in a short time. The owners then sit back and say, "Fine us. What are the worst consequences?" That is not the way to protect our environment and heritage.

I know that the Minister has a broad-ranging brief and that some hon. Members will urge all sorts of environmental changes, including the right to ramble, but I hope that this matter will be taken extremely seriously.

1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on securing time to draw the House's attention to a recent incident in his constituency which has raised much local concern. I thank him for his good wishes and his observation that I am earning my money. I hope that somebody somewhere has noticed that. I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to his points.

The specific action that we are discussing is the clearance of rhododendron bushes from part of Whitley park, which is owned by Elliotts Bricks. I recognise and sympathise greatly with the concerns of local people who walk the paths around Whitley park and have had to stand by and watch that happen. The before-and-after photographs that were given to me today illustrate starkly what happened during this bank holiday. Whether or not it was environmentally right to clear the rhododendron bushes, the way in which the company went about it clearly increased the sense of outrage and alienated the company from local communities.

From what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, this case seems to be part of an on-going pattern of behaviour by that company. It is extremely regrettable that it feels that it can behave in that way and continue to do so over a number of years. If a company takes such a confrontational attitude to what it likes to call land management, but for which others might have a different name, it is not surprising that its behaviour should draw crowds and cause trouble, as occurred at Whitley park at Easter. At the least, it is unwise and regrettable that the company decided to behave in such a way.

As my hon. Friend said, we are told that the landowners of Whitley park are carrying out the work as part of a comprehensive whole farm plan". The name derives from an approach to land management that is supported by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group which, as many hon. Members will know, provides valuable conservation advice to landowners, as it did to Elliotts Bricks on this occasion. It is no good, however, for a company to claim that it has a comprehensive whole farm plan if it decides to behave in such a confrontational manner.

Comprehensive whole farm plans exist, and advice was given to the company, but I do not endorse the way in which it subsequently went about its work or the provocative and confrontational way in which it set out to achieve its aims. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, rhododendrons are regarded as an invasive weed that may suppress natural tree regeneration. Rhododendron control is acceptable, but not in the way that Elliotts Bricks went about it.

My hon. Friend raised a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. He mentioned hedgerows regulations which came into force on 1 June. He will know that we had some serious problems with the approach to hedgerows taken by the previous Government. Although the regulations are an important first step in the protection of hedgerows, we have made it clear that we consider that they are too weak. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced an immediate review of the regulations, to consider how they might be strengthened.

Given that the focus of the regulations is on hedgerows and not on other forms of vegetation or boundaries, I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend comfort that the review will yield changes to prevent a recurrence of the events at Whitley park, but it shows the Government's commitment to stronger environmental protection.

My hon. Friend referred to a ruling by Lord Denning on the scope of tree preservation orders. We are aware of one case in the 1970s where Lord Denning considered the question of what exactly in a woodland is protected by a tree preservation order. I am afraid that Lord Denning's ruling does not provide comfort for my hon. Friend—indeed, precisely the opposite. It recognised that protection extends only to trees in a wood, and went on to suggest that many saplings should not be regarded as trees, because, in a woodland, only trees of more than 7 or 8 in in diameter should be protected. That restrictive view was not applied by the courts in a subsequent case, but the courts have clearly established that tree preservation orders control the removal of trees only.

The local authority's tree preservation order in this case does not extend to all the trees in the wood, but only to certain groups of trees. This category is used for trees whose overall impact and quality merit protection. The tree preservation order must show the boundary of the group and must specify the number of trees included in it. The order is precise, and only specific trees are subject to its requirements. It does not apply to any trees or bushes that happen to be in the area shown in the plan that forms part of the order.

Although rhododendrons were removed from the area delineated in the tree preservation order, my understanding is that no work had been undertaken on the protected trees, so the requirements of the order were not contravened. I shall, however, ensure that when considering any future changes to tree preservation legislation, we take full account of the events at Whitley park.

My hon. Friend invited my views on the relevance of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to what happened at Whitley park. As he observed, section 1 of the 1981 Act makes it an offence intentionally to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird, while the nest is in use or being built. For the species of bird that are specifically protected under the 1981 Act by their listing in schedule 1, it is an offence intentionally to disturb the birds while they are building a nest or while the nests contain eggs or young.

Mr. Sheerman

Is that list constantly updated? We hear from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that birds that, only a few years ago, were considered a common species, such as the tree sparrow, are now an endangered species.

Angela Eagle

The health or otherwise of many bird species is changing constantly, so I shall check the facts and write to my hon. Friend on the matter. It would not be helpful if there were no updating mechanism.

My Department, in co-operation with the police, has raised the profile of wildlife crime and will continue to do so. Every police force in England now has a wildlife liaison officer who specialises in dealing with that activity. To aid those officers and others who deal with wildlife crime, the Department recently published a book, "Wildlife crime—a guide to law enforcement in the conservation and protection of wildlife in the United Kingdom". It is a practical guide to those involved in investigating offences under wildlife legislation.

We shall continue to keep the situation under review and ensure that the experience at Whitley park informs future consideration of the matter. My hon. Friends will realise that to change legislation requires slots in an already tight legislative timetable for the new Government. They may rest assured that my Department will continue to press for changes in legislation in these areas to be given a reasonable place in the queue over the five-year term of this Parliament.

I understand that one of the concerns underlying recent events at Whitley park arises from anxiety about the owners' future intentions towards the site, especially proposals for the opencasting of clay. The issue is not merely the company's confrontational and provocative attitude and its unwillingness to enter into a dialogue with local communities, but the communities' concerns about its future intentions with respect to opencasting which, as we all know, can cause terrible environmental damage if it is not properly regulated.

At the public inquiry, Elliotts Bricks argued for policies to be included in the draft Kirklees unitary development plan to allow brick earth mineral development at Whitley park. The inspector's report of that inquiry and his conclusions are awaited. It is expected that they will be presented to my Department in the autumn.

In the meantime, there are a number of old minerals planning permissions that apply to the Whitley park site, and Elliotts Bricks has applied to Kirklees council to resume clay extraction from five or so sites in the general area. All old mineral permissions must be reviewed by the mineral planning authority under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995. Clearly, the process has been set in hand by Kirklees council.

I understand that the council has refused to put a number of the Elliotts Bricks sites on its list of sites to be reviewed because it has doubts about the validity of the applications. The company has appealed to the Secretary of State against three of those decisions relating to the Houses Hill, Spa Green Quarry and Temple Grange Moor sites. The appeals are very recent and have been received in the Department only in the past few weeks.

The determination of the appeal will be made by one of my Department's inspectors and will be factually based on whether a relevant planning permission exists or not. The judgment is simply: is there an old permission to mine minerals from the site, or not?

When an appeal is lodged with the Department, Ministers have a legal responsibility to all parties involved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate, therefore, that I cannot comment further on the particular circumstances of those cases. However, my information is that none of the applications and appeals relates directly to those parts of the park from which the rhododendrons were cleared.

The events at Whitley park and the public reaction to them demonstrate the importance that we all attach to our local environment. My hon. Friend has highlighted the way in which mechanisms that are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of the local environment have proved inadequate in the circumstances of this particular case.

The announcement of the immediate review of the hedgerows regulations demonstrates the Government's commitment to strong environmental protection. We will keep relevant legislation under review, and I can assure my hon. Friend that, in considering any future changes, we will take account of what happened at Whitley park. I appeal to companies to play their part by not behaving in such a provocative and confrontational way. Instead, I hope that they will seek to build an open and constructive relationship and dialogue with their local communities.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.