§ 1 pm
§ On resuming—
§ Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon)I am pleased to be able to bring to the House's attention the serious question of Railtrack's activities through its attempted use of permitted development rights in Oxford; and the wider questions of whether companies, particularly privatised utilities such as Railtrack should be able to exercise permitted development rights; and, also—if they are allowed to do so—what forms of consultation with local communities they should undertake and what bearing those consultations should have on outcomes. There is the further question of whether it is appropriate, fair and an act of natural justice for compensation to be payable by local authorities to private companies when those local authorities are successful in defending their local environment.
My constituency interest arises from the proposed development of a ballast storage facility, or what Railtrack calls a virtual quarry, at Hinksey sidings, which abuts my constituency, especially the community of South Hinksey. The site itself and another group of residents who are greatly affected by the proposals—those in New Hinksey and South Oxford—are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), whom I see in his place. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a long and careful interest in the matter and has, like me, heard representations from local people for many months. I am sure that he has passed those on to the Government and added his own representations. Railtrack's activities concern many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who intends, after I have concluded my remarks, to raise the question of Railtrack's general attitude to development in his area.
I feel strongly about the subject, because Railtrack's activities in the case I shall describe have been appalling, not only in its proposals—though one might even argue that the company is entitled to make proposals—but in its response to subsequent events. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) who is to wind up the debate, will be aware that Railtrack has an important responsibility to improve the country's rail network—to upgrade existing rail lines to ensure that they can take faster trains, thereby enabling services to be improved, and to build more lines where necessary. I understand that that requires the laying down of large amounts of hard rock; and that to make that an effective method of building railway lines, Railtrack has to create storage facilities for the quarried rock around the country; and that 13 or 14 such sites are required.
The proposal that Railtrack made in respect of Hinksey sidings in Oxfordshire is for the 13th, or almost the last, of those stockpiling facilities. It has met with strong opposition because of the green-belt status of the site on which the company has chosen to build the storage facility. The fact that it would be a large, highly visible pile of rocks and stones, together with the added noise and dust pollution resulting from stones being transported to and from the site, would significantly reduce the amenity of people living in the area. There has been 935 strong local opposition, not only to the concept and the likelihood of pollution, but to the activities of Railtrack subsequent to events and the manner and mode of its consultation.
One would expect Railtrack to have made a thorough environmental impact assessment before the consultation period started. One would expect Railtrack to communicate carefully with local democratically elected representatives, including, but not exclusively, Members of Parliament. One would expect Railtrack to have given adequate consideration to other options before settling on the proposed site. However, Railtrack has been clearly seen by local people and independent observers to have failed in every single one of those duties, even though they are only the minimum that one could expect the company to perform.
Although we understand that Railtrack has to do its job, the company has to understand that it, as custodian to a large extent of the country's environment, has to balance that need to get on with its job with sensitivity to the environment. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that to protect the environment might in the short term cost a little more in purely financial terms, but that it is an investment worth making, not only for the sake of the improved quality of life and benefits that extend from a good environment, but because certain aspects of our environment and landscape are finite resources. Those sentiments have been echoed by Ministers who say they are concerned with the principle of protecting the environment.
It is clear that, by the time Railtrack produced its proposals, it had not considered either the environmental costs of choosing the site, or seriously considered choosing a different site which might have been more expensive, but which would have done the job at a lower environmental cost. One has to ask whether Railtrack failed to do that because it was concerned solely with its profits—profits that the newly appointed independent rail regulator has recently judged to be excessive. The company is now under the microscope as to whether it is concerned solely with potential profits and shareholder dividends, rather than with its wider social responsibilities. It is a monopoly organisation, so it should pay special attention to those wider responsibilities. It has inherited certain rights and responsibilities from a publicly owned corporation, British Rail, which, for all its faults, would not have acted in as shabby and arrogant a manner as Railtrack has exhibited in Oxford.
When the consultation process opened, we were led to believe that it would be a valid process—that whatever the views expressed by local people and their representatives, they would be heeded by Railtrack. To my disappointment, but not to any great surprise, I have recently learnt that a contract covering the site named as Hinksey sidings had already been signed, sealed and delivered to Midland Quarry Products by the time that that company released its prospectus on 1 June; yet the consultation with local people started much later that summer. I have asked the Minister about the need for Railtrack to carry out adequate consultation. His reply stated that guidance on non-statutory consultation makes it clear that
both local planning authorities and the public should be informed of proposals for permitted development which are likely to affect them significantly, before the proposals are finalised."—[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 22.]936 There is no doubt that Railtrack, in its own mind, and in its contract with the sub-contractors, finalised the proposals even before consultation had started.The specific problems that were drawn to Railtrack's attention during the so-called consultation related to the impact of noise on local people's enjoyment of their homes and gardens and the amenity of local playgroups and doctors' surgeries. All those groups made representations saying that the noise—effectively that of quarrying work—would significantly reduce their quality of life. Another representation was made in respect of health concerns relating to dust pollution. Railtrack sought to give reassurance in respect of both those matters, saying that there would not be significant noise disturbance because of the distances involved and that the stone would be thoroughly washed at source, so there would be little or no dust.
§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)Does my hon. Friend agree that the unsatisfactory situation to which he rightly draws our attention is a consequence of the curious legal position in which Railtrack finds itself? As a private sector monopolistic company with public sector benefits inherited from British Rail, it should be investing far more in, for example, safety. It is overcharging some of the train operating companies for work done to stations. It is important that, when the strategic rail authority is established, powers should be taken away from Railtrack. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister set out today what powers are to be stripped from Railtrack as part of the Government's review of the rail industry?
§ Dr. HarrisI endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I pay tribute to his sterling work in this area. He has been a thorn in the side of those who seek to exploit their monopoly position and pollute the environment. Railtrack's approach in this matter contrasts with its rather grand environmental policy statement produced in the corporate responsibility review 1997–98—I shall allow the word "responsibility" to hang in the air for a few minutes and return later to the question whether Railtrack is acting responsibly. The statement says:
We will ensure that new projects … are managed professionally in a way which incorporates assessment of environmental impact and takes appropriate action to keep any adverse impacts to a minimum.We will aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate.Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I was referring to my constituents' many concerns about the project, including noise and dust pollution. Railtrack has demonstrated breathtaking irresponsibility by proceeding with the development of the ballast stockpiling facility while an article 4 direction is pending—especially in view of its statements that it was prepared to listen and enter into genuine consultation.Railtrack may find that its actions will count against it. Local residents have now witnessed at first hand the spoiling of the local amenity. They have heard the noise created by that activity and seen—and, I fear, suffered from—the dust pollution. All of the potential fears raised about the project have been realised even before the 937 Secretary of State reaches a decision regarding the article 4 direction. The concerns of my constituents and the constituents of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East have been validated by Railtrack's recent actions in creating a stockpile, de facto.
I think that it is arrogant for Railtrack to proceed while the Secretary of State's decision regarding the article 4 direction is pending. I hope that it will get its come-uppance in the form of representations to the Minister from local people detailing the damage to the environment and to the local amenity as a result of Railtrack's actions.
In view of those local concerns, Oxfordshire county council took the correct—although brave—decision to issue an article 4 direction which, if upheld by the Secretary of State, would force Railtrack to submit to the due planning process. The Minister knows that his Department received that article 4 direction on 2 November, and it informed me on 9 November that a decision would be made as soon as possible. There are clearly broader issues involved and a significant—indeed, a landmark—decision will have to be taken. So I might understand why the Secretary of State has delayed his decision. However, I seek his reassurance that Railtrack's decision to press on with its proposal will not have a bearing on his ultimate ruling, which should be based on the environmental merits of the case and not any situation that Railtrack has manufactured at the time that the decision is taken.
I now come to the question of compensation as it relates to this case. If Oxfordshire county council is successful and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions confirms the article 4 direction, Railtrack will be forced to undertake the normal planning process—which most would expect to be the normal procedure, given that this is a green-belt area. If Railtrack fails to secure planning permission and does not win any appeal, can it be right that Oxfordshire county council—which had succeeded in preventing a development that, in the view of the planning authorities, would damage the environment—should be forced to pay compensation? Moreover, such compensation would be paid out of the limited funds that are needed for the education of children and the provision of social services to the vulnerable, the young, the elderly and the mentally ill in Oxfordshire. Is it appropriate that the council should pay millions of pounds in compensation to a private company which has acted in such a manner, and which, in the view of the independent Rail Regulator, already makes excessive profits?
That cannot be allowed to happen. It is generally believed that the law must protect those who seek to defend our environment from unsuitable development. It is clear that, with a little more investment, Railtrack could use alternative sites in Oxfordshire, which would prevent the despoliation of Oxford's skyline and the loss of amenity to local people. I ask the Minister not only to urge the Secretary of State to uphold the article 4 direction, but to provide some encouragement in his winding-up speech today to my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East in their campaign to prevent the development.
938 I pay tribute to the campaigners from South Hinksey, South Oxford and particularly the New Hinksey area for the strong, fair, factually accurate and articulate way in which they have put their case. Thanks to their efforts, the development has generated a great deal of media attention that has pointed to the significant problems that the development would cause for those in my constituency and the local area and which similar plans would cause for people up and down the country.
§ Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for allowing me to make a short speech during this Adjournment debate. I apologise to the Minister for my lack of courtesy in failing to let him know the contents of my contribution. I understand that he will respond to me in writing.
There is a saying that the sins of the fathers are often visited upon their sons. That is certainly true when examining the aftermath of the former Government's disastrous policy of selling off landholdings that were the key to improving the nation's transport infrastructure. Towns such as Harrogate are now paying the price: first, for the deregulation of the bus industry, which put valuable town-centre sites on the market for other than transport use; and then for the transfer of British Rail's former landholdings to Railtrack.
In Harrogate, development blight has virtually paralysed a strategic town-centre site for 15 years. The borough council, like the present Government, wants brown-field sites to be used for development. It wants to see retailing development and effective transport interchanges in our town centres. That would be possible without any cost to the Treasury or local taxpayers if Railtrack could be persuaded to use its strategic monopoly for public good as well as private profit.
The former bus station site in Harrogate cannot be developed without using adjacent land that is owned by Railtrack. The borough council rightly insists that any new development should have a transport interchange, including a bus station—a position that was confirmed twice by previous Secretaries of State on appeal. The borough council is willing to negotiate on commuted payment car parking to make the scheme a success, and the site's current owner, Scottish Widows, has agreed to operate on an "open book" basis with Railtrack in order to demonstrate that the development is marginal in profit terms.
Railtrack holds the key to the town's ambitions. It owns significant areas of land that have remained under-utilised for nearly 30 years. Yet every developer who appears—and there have been many—is treated with suspicion and often hostility, and usually gives up and moves away out of sheer frustration. Why? It is because Railtrack will not negotiate—and, frankly, as my hon. Friend said, it does not need to. That cannot be right.
If Railtrack had had to pay market value for its site, its accountants and shareholders would undoubtedly force it to act. As things stand, Railtrack can simply ignore the howls of public concern and sit on land for which it has no strategic use but will not release for the benefit of future investment in rail infrastructure or for the benefit of the people who wish to use the public transport system in Harrogate. Furthermore, the current planning 939 regulations will not allow the use of compulsory purchase powers because, if Railtrack claims operational use for any part of the land, it will become exempt. In short, Railtrack holds all the cards and the pack remains sealed.
It is ironic that, over the past 10 years, the council has secured investment of £750 million in the Harrogate station area. We seek two simple commitments from the Minister. First, when he next meets Railtrack will he please stress that areas like Harrogate—and Harrogate in particular—need Railtrack to co-operate in the planning system in order to provide the transport infrastructure that both the Government and the borough council desire? Furthermore, will he, if necessary, review the compulsory purchase regulations so that local councils can deal with the matter through their local planning process rather than having to wait for the vagaries of Railtrack and the market?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on an issue which I know is of great concern not only to him and his constituents but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his constituents. Both hon. Members have been assiduous in pursuing the matter with me and I have had several representations from them and their constituents.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised matters relating to development which went far wide of the narrow focus of the debate, which is restricted to permitted development rights. As he will know from his contact with my office this morning, I shall write to him and deal with the points that he has made which are not germane to this debate.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has made clear, he and his constituents are concerned about Railtrack's exercise of permitted development rights to stockpile ballast on a site to the west of Oxford. Oxfordshire county council has made a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to withdraw these rights. If approved, the effect of that would be to require Railtrack to submit a planning application for further development on the site. The direction has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East that the concerns raised by local residents—including those related to the impact on the green belt, noise, dust and visual amenity—are being taken into account alongside the views expressed by Railtrack and Oxfordshire county council. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say more because to do so might prejudice my right hon. Friend's consideration of the issues involved in the case. A decision will be made as soon as possible, as I have already said in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
This is a complex issue and the Government office has today asked for further evidence from both Railtrack and the county council so that a properly informed decision can be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will be made solely on the merits of the case and will not be influenced by the fact that works have already been undertaken.
940 There are, however, a number of general points of principle arising from what the hon. Gentleman has said, to which I shall respond. Permitted development rights have been approved by the House and apply throughout England and Wales. They benefit a large number of bodies in the public and private sectors, including householders. It has been the policy of successive Governments that those rights should not be withdrawn locally without very good reason. Local planning authorities have been advised in circular 9/95 that, generally, permitted development rights should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. The Government stand by that principle. It will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged importance.
The hon. Gentleman questioned why permitted development rights originally granted to a public body—British Rail—should continue to apply to private companies such as Railtrack. In general terms, the planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. The ownership of the particular body carrying out the development is not relevant.
The statutory obligations of bodies such as Railtrack necessitate essential development from time to time, just as they did when they were vested in its public sector predecessor, British Rail. It would be in nobody's interest to require the submission of a planning application every time development was proposed, no matter how small or insignificant. Local planning authorities would be inundated with planning applications, the efficiency of the statutory undertaker's operations would be needlessly compromised and the resultant costs would fall to the customer.
I doubt that hon. Members would want Railtrack to have to apply for planning permission every time it needed to carry out essential safety, maintenance or enhancement works on the rail network. To do so could at the very least impose serious delays and at worst impose unacceptable risks for rail customers.
That does not mean that Railtrack or any other statutory undertaker enjoying permitted development rights can do whatever it likes. For example, in the case of the exercise of development by statutory undertakers under class A of part 17 of the general permitted development order, the development has to be by the railway undertaker on its operational land and required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. It cannot, for example, exploit this power to build an office block or a supermarket anywhere it likes alongside the railway.
As the case that the hon. Gentleman has in mind demonstrates, even where permitted development rights exist, the local planning authority can, with certain exceptions, seek to withdraw those rights by means of an article 4 direction.
Where there is a sound case for improvements to be made to the operation of permitted development rights, the Government will of course give serious consideration to any necessary amendments to the regime. An independent study, commissioned by the Department, into the use made by statutory undertakers of their permitted development rights involved consultation with local planning authorities, statutory undertakers and a wide range of other bodies with an interest in the environment 941 and heritage. It concluded that, by and large, the system of permitted development rights operates effectively, but it made recommendations for relatively minor amendments to the system, and those are being considered.
The hon. Gentleman asked why permitted development rights should be enjoyed in the green belt. As I said in my written answer to him on 9 November, one reason for withdrawing permitted development rights in a particular case might be the impact on the green belt. To remove those rights throughout the green belt for works involving development, however trivial, would be unjustified. Much of the railway network passes through the green belt and I doubt that hon. Members would want essential maintenance, safety and enhancement works to be delayed or prevented on those parts of the network because of a blanket disapplication of those rights and the consequent need to apply for planning permission.
The hon. Gentleman asked also why the local planning authority may be liable for compensation where permitted development rights are withdrawn. I shall elaborate on the reply that I gave him on 9 November. Since permitted development rights should not be withdrawn save in exceptional circumstances it follows that the body deprived of the rights that would normally be enjoyed should be entitled to compensation.
In the specific case of a statutory undertaker, compensation is payable only following the withdrawal of permitted development rights where, under section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the statutory undertaker subsequently applies for planning permission and the Secretary of State refuses permission or imposes conditions. Under section 280 of the Act, the general principle of assessment is that the claimant is entitled to compensation, including for all expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out any acquisition or works made necessary by the proceeding giving rise to compensation and to loss of profits.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for giving us the opportunity to consider those complex issues. I reassure him that they are receiving serious consideration in our Department and a decision will be made as soon as possible, when we have received the additional information that we have requested, and exclusively on the merits of the case.