HL Deb 08 February 1949 vol 160 cc608-22

5.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF LINDSAY rose to ask His Majesty's Government why, when non-agricultural land which is suitable for housing purposes is available in the neighbourhood of Bracknell, the Draft Designation Order for the new town to be built there includes over 1,000 acres of good agricultural land and will cause disturbance to no fewer than thirty-six agricultural occupiers, and what principle governs the decision of his Majesty's Government in this and similar cases. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I ask it because I believe that the site which has been provisionally chosen for the new satellite town of Bracknell will cause unnecessary hardship to the farming community there—the owners and the farm workers—and also because I believe that an unnecessary loss will be caused to our food production.

The site which has been chosen for the new town amounts merely to an extension in every direction of the boundaries of the present Bracknell; in other words, the limits of the new town and those of the present town form, roughly, two concentric circles. The ground which has been taken in by the new boundaries includes a proportion of good agricultural land. I will come back to that point in a moment. The first question that I ask myself (although I do not ask His Majesty's Government) is: Why should we support a Ministry of Town and Country Planning if this is a fair example of its planning, because surely this is just the natural development that one would have got had there never been any such thing as organised planning—houses creeping out from the edge of the town, engulfing good farming land, just as a builder speculator snaps up land with a view to getting a quick return on his money, without any idea of the proper use to which that land should have been put.

Surely the underlying principle, the raison d'être of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, is the conservation of the land. Its job is to see that the very limited land resources of this country are put to the best possible advantage. The only real difference between the bold, bad days, and the present time, would seem to be that in the old days the farmer did not have to sell if he did not want to, but now he has to go if he is ordered to. Any one who is unfamiliar with the country around Bracknell might well say that if we must have a satellite town in that vicinity then the farmers and the farm land somewhere must suffer. But that, in fact, is not the case and would show an ignorance of that part of the world because, starting within a mile or two to the east and south of Bracknell, there are large tracts of scrub and heath country which have no value to the nation at all other than as possible building sites. They are just miles and miles of nothing—nothing, in fact, but heather, bracken, birch trees and fir trees—with not a human being to be seen.

The only thing that can be said for them is that from the point of view of satellite towns these areas have a certain amount to recommend them. They are healthy, with gravelly soil and a hard pan underneath to facilitate building. There is no one to be interfered with, and there would be unlimited scope for planning. The areas are all on main roads and near to existing railways. Six alternative sites within a very few miles of Bracknell, in the general area of Bracknell—Easthamstead, Crowthorne, Bagshot, Sunningdale and Ascot—have been suggested to the Ministry by the Berkshire Executive of the National Farmers' Union. None of these sites includes any agricultural land. Up to the present, they have all been turned down. I will not go in detail into questions relating to all these sites. Obviously, every such question has many pros and cons, but it would seem, generally speaking, that the reasons why they have been turned down are based on the matter of cost, difficulties of sewage disposal, the expense of building roads, providing essential services and so forth, whereas if the present Bracknell were used as a foundation existing services would be available to make a start.

It is not for me to encourage extravagance or needless expenditure on the part of Government Departments, but at the same time I feel that in this particular case, if the extra cost results in the saving of good food-producing land for the nation, it may be well worth while. One reason for the choice of this arable land for the new town of Bracknell—a reason which has never been given officially, though I believe it may possibly have played its part—is the desire to get attractive gardens for the future inhabitants of this town. I do not in the least begrudge these people nice gardens, but I do say that whereas you cannot make a farm out of poor ground—or at least it would be extremely uneconomic to try to do so—you can make a garden. A few loads of good soil, some fertiliser and some hard work are all that are needed. Given those you will have a garden. That cannot be said, however, in the case of farms. If this is a reason for the selection of this arable land for this town, I confess that I do not regard it as a good and sufficient reason.

I would now say a word about the farm land which it is proposed to take over. It is officially designated as "sixth grade." This, actually, is not so bad as it sounds. It means merely that land is reasonably good agricultural land, without being the best. I would, however, point out that this sixth grade is a general average far the whole area and, of course, includes certain holdings which are of much higher quality, along with other parts that are unproductive. I believe that the low grading of this land as a whole is based upon a Survey and a Report made some years before the war, and that it does not, in fact, give a true indication of the real worth of this ground as it is to-day. The farm land of Bracknell has been greatly improved in the past few years. Market gardeners have recently come into the area, and it has been found that the land there is most suitable for this type of food production.

Incidentally, some of the people who will be dispossessed under the scheme have come into Bracknell after having been dispossessed through development schemes in Middlesex. Pedigree dairy herds have been built up in the past few years since the Report was made. Permanent structures—cowsheds, crop-drying machines, and so forth—have all been built. If this scheme goes through in its present form, 2,600 acres of land will be affected. Admittedly, all of it is not good agricultural land. In my Question I have put the figure as over 1,000 acres. In doing so, I have erred very much on the safe side. In fact, the figure of good farm land is much nearer 1,500 acres. In his reply to a question in another place, the Minister of Town and Country Planning stated that only about half the 2,600 acres provisionally designated is agricultural land, but I feel that this also is an understatement, because in the unproductive half there are some 500 to 600 acres made up of odd fields and small patches of ground which could be developed into market gardens. Thirty-six agricultural occupiers are affected, ranging from owners of farms of over 300 acres to smallholders. Land which was neglected in the years of depression before the war has now been brought into cultivation and is producing abundant crops. Woods are being cleared at the present time, as I have seen with my own eyes in the past week. Yields per acre are now being obtained which in many cases are higher than the national average, and the owners of three pedigree herds who will be dispossessed, if the scheme goes through, have all won first prizes at the Royal and local agricultural shows during the past two years.

Owing to housing and aerodrome development in Middlesex, in recent months, many market gardeners have moved into East Berkshire, and as a result the Bracknell district is now assuming an importance as a food producer for the London area. At least one hundred permanent farm workers—apart from casual workers—are affected. In passing, I would like to say that when I visited Bracknell a few days ago, one of the persons I met who seemed most concerned about what is happening was the representative of the National Union of Farm Workers. One of the most remarkable aspects of the whole affair is that the Berkshire Agricultural Executive Committee were never consulted officially about this matter prior to the Draft Designation Order being made—or so I have been informed.

I will not weary your Lordships with a long list of statistics but I would like to give you just a few figures to indicate something of the annual loss to the food production of the nation which will result if this scheme goes through: Cereal crops, nearly 2,000,000 lb. (860 tons); potatoes, well over 1,000,000 lb.; vegetables, nearly 3,000,000 lb.; cattle food, over 1,500 tons; pigs, about 1,500 reared or fattened (and this number is now being greatly increased); eggs, over 106,000 (this number also is being steadily increased); milk, over 1,084,000 pints, or rations for 8,340 people. In these days, these and other items which I have not mentioned make up a sum total of food which, I submit, we can hardly afford to throw away. It is, of course, possible that it will be some time before this scheme is put into effect, but I would ask your Lordships to consider the psychological effect on the farmers and farm workers of Bracknell. Farming is not a short-term business. The farmer expects to benefit for years to come from what he puts into his land to-day, from the additions he makes to his farm. It is only natural that the farming community in the Bracknell area must suffer from having this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

In conclusion, there is one point I wish to make abundantly clear; that is, that the farming community of Bracknell do not oppose this satellite town as such. What they seek is that the claims of the farmers should be taken into account and given due consideration when the final choice of a site for the town is made. For the reasons I have given, I beg leave to ask the Question.

5.20 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, the noble Earl has made so powerful a case that he needs very little support. At the same time, the matter to which he has called attention is one which, on the face of it, requires so much explanation that perhaps any further material that can be directed towards the Government may serve at least to elicit a more ample reply. There was a time, I am afraid rather long past, when I used to know this particular area reasonably well, and during the war years I had cause frequently to revisit it. The reason that I had to revisit it was that the area around Bracknell contained an extremely large ammunition depot. The reason that it contained that large ammunition depot was that there was there the biggest uncultivated area suitable for the purpose which could be found, I think I am right in saying, in the whole of the South Eastern Command. Apparently it is now necessary, in order to establish the satellite town, for the Ministry to take over farming land and not to avail itself of the very considerable areas of uncultivatable land which exist in the immediate vicinity.

During the war the pressure to produce, and to put every acre of agricultural ground to full use, was certainly not less than it is to-day. Yet during those years not even the most optimistic Minister of Agriculture made any attempt to turn this barren area into cultivatable ground. It was left to the tender mercies of the ammunition depot. Now it continues to be left, although during the war it was found to be perfectly suitable for standing camps and could be easily prepared for their reception and, therefore, may perhaps be regarded as habitable territory. It is left to continue under heather and bracken, and for the purpose of establishing a satellite town it is apparently thought necessary to annex the very considerable area of highly productive land to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. We shall await with some interest the Government's explanation of this proposal.

5.24 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think the public conscience is now, in the year 1949, at last aroused on the subject of the constant draining away of agricultural land. Your Lordships' House is to some extent the keeper of the public conscience in this matter. Such instances as my noble friend has raised have been going on all over the country for a long time now, in connection with new towns, aerodromes and roads. We had hoped that with the creation of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning there would be some end to what I might call the wilful drain; but it was not to be. I am not raising any specific case. I am considering merely what one might call the sting in the tail of the noble Earl's Question, and what principle governs the decisions of the Government in this and similar cases. I do not know what answer the noble Earl will receive. I presume it will be that every case is considered on its merits; that every Department of His Majesty's Government is consulted, and not least the Ministry of Agriculture.

Of course, that conjures up visions of omniscient boards of gentlemen, sitting round tables, judging every case according to its merits on the wise principles of Confucianism. In practice, it means "inter-tribal" warfare in Whitehall, and we all know that the victory goes to the "tribe" led by the most powerful and most cunning chief. I am not fully satisfied that to-day agriculture is led by the most powerful and most cunning chief in Whitehall. At best we receive a wise personal judgment, and at the worst a compromise based on unholy opportunism. The judgment would have to be based on purely immeasurable factors. Is it conceivable that we can introduce some yardstick which would be of assistance in measuring these things? Could we introduce the principle of money, which noble and altruistic Lords opposite sometimes tend to spurn? It seems to me that we might. At the moment there is no inducement—or relatively none—and no deterrent, to the use of good agricultural land, as against poor land, for building or other purpose. The price is relatively the same; the development charge, so far as I am aware, is relatively the same. There is no price deterrent to taking the best agricultural land. It makes small difference to the user.

I submit that if we wanted to introduce a money yardstick, it could be done probably on the existing grading of land by levying on the use of the land a charge calculated to bring up to the agricultural level of the land that is being taken an equal area of land which is comparatively waste. In this country, alongside a lot of good land there is also a lot of waste land which, by immense toil and immense sums of money, can be improved considerably in fertility. We should achieve the result that there would be a fund which would be spent on replacing good land that went out of use with an equal area of bad land being brought into use. If good land is vital to the purpose of the man who wants to use it, he should first of all have to satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture, if he can, and if the Ministry agree that his enterprise is vital, let it bear the additional burden of the cost of replacing that land in our national heritage. It is rough justice. What the man has despoiled, let him replace. If there were some sort of money yardstick, as well as a personal judgment, people would have more confidence that these matters would be judged in the best possible manner. I support my noble friend in asking this Question.

5.30 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has put down this Question and enabled this subject to be raised in the House to-day. I do not know whether it will be a refreshing change for the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to get away from foreign affairs, and come here to put the best face he can on what seems, on the face of it, to be a serious error of judgment in the planning of one of these new towns. It is just the sort of thing that we thought would be avoided if an effective Ministry of Town and Country Planning was set up. The normal way in which our towns increased was by spreading out more and more from the centre. Under good town and country planning we were told that that would cease. But that is the very thing that is going to occur here—just a spread out from the centre of the town of Bracknell, taking willy-nilly all the agricultural land it likes in its course. This kind of action, if it is allowed to continue, will bring the Ministry of Town and Country Planning into disrepute.

I know that the Minister went down to Bracknell, and his visit produced, at any rate, one good result—namely, a fine picture of the site in the next day's edition of The Times, for which I think we were all extremely grateful. It was clear that some very good agricultural fields were going to be taken for this new town. I suspect that the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us that there is to be an impartial inquiry on February 23, and that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration when the special man goes down to conduct that inquiry. It will not be a bad factor if he takes into account the fact that some quite well-informed people in both Houses of Parliament feel, in the absence of some good reason to the contrary, that a mistake has been made in this case.

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has remained in the House for this debate, because I do not think the Ministry of Agriculture are fighting hard enough to preserve agricultural land. If you are going to stop aggression, you have to fight, whether the aggression comes from the noble Lord, Lord Reith, or wherever it comes from. I do not know whether it does come from Lord Reith, but he looks after the general control of these towns. You have not only to fight against it because we cannot afford to lose any more ground, but also because of the psychological effect it has on the good farmer and the good farm worker. If you are always telling them to produce more food, and at the same time letting good agricultural land go, you discourage them from putting that extra effort into their work. As the noble Earl who raised this question told us, several of the farmers on this site have already been displaced in order to make way for the London Airport, or for some other reason. They have gone to Bracknell to start afresh, and within a couple of years—unless this debate, the inquiry or general public concern about the matter has some effect on the Government—they look as though they will be moved on again.

Why not build this town around this railway on the heathland which is so close to the town of Bracknell? It will not be any further from London. Some good towns in this country have been built on heathland. One of the best instances I can give is the town of Bournemouth, which was built entirely in the pinewoods and on the heathland round that part of the shore of our South coast. One would have to go a long way to find a healthier and better planned town than Bournemouth. Why not build it on the heathland? I believe the short simple answer to be that the land in question belongs either to the Commissioners of Crown Lands or to the War Department. If you try to take that land, then you may have to fight with the Commissioners of Crown Lands or with the War Department, and in the Civil Service "dog does not eat dog." That is why the farming land which belongs to private owners has to be taken.

I hope that, spurred on by my words, the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, will put up a fight in order that the farms may be preserved, and that this town may be put on other land which is quite suitable land for building. Whatever reply we may get from the noble Lord to-day, I hope that as a result of this debate, and of other public opinion that has been aroused, eventually we shall see some other land taken for this new town, even though that land may at the moment be in the hands of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, or may be part of the land that the War Department seized near by. After all, it is not on every question that you get the county agricultural executive committee, the National Farmers' Union, and the National Union of Agricultural Workers all agreeing, as they do in this particular case, as the noble Earl opposite well knows. I hope that in future the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will work on the lines of taking for these developments the poorer agricultural land, which is still good land for houses, and that more of our agricultural land will not be sacrificed when we are having such difficulty with our food supply.

5.37 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, having known the Bracknell area since the year 1904, having administered the first two Town and Country Planning Acts for many years, and having also been responsible for the administration of an agricultural estate for twenty-five years. I would warmly recommend His Majesty's Government to listen to what has been said this afternoon in this debate, and to give a sympathetic and practical answer. If the noble Lord who is to reply cannot give a final answer, I hope he will give us an assurance that careful consideration will be given to the matter of changing the threatened decision of the Minister of Town and Country Planning in relation to this new town.

5.38 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON)

My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with a good deal of sympathy to the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in support of this Question. He has given expression to the strong opposition which we all know to exist regarding the proposal to construct a new town at Bracknell, in so far as it will involve the use of good agricultural land. As one who was associated with the discussions on the New Towns Bill when it went through your Lordships' House, I know there was general support and approval for the great social conception which it embodied. At the same time, I realise that it is perhaps impossible to plan a project of this character without encountering opposition from one interest or another which may be affected. In saying this, I do not wish to be understood to suggest that such opposition is necessarily unreasonable. Indeed, I readily recognise that agricultural occupiers will show reluctance, if not strong opposition, to being dispossessed for any reason, however necessary or desirable it may be on broad public grounds. I am well aware, too, that agriculture and the proper use of agricultural land are of special interest and concern to your Lordships in all parts of the House. It is not surprising, therefore, that the proposal for a new town at Bracknell should be closely scrutinised and criticised from the standpoint of its possible effects upon agricultural land.

It would perhaps be useful if I were to give briefly some of the main facts, in order to explain why a new town at Bracknell is proposed, and to help to remove any misunderstanding of the nature of the proposal. No new town has yet been established to the West of London which can Word relief to the overcrowded areas in Middlesex—Brentford and Chiswick, Southall, Heston, Hayes and Twickenham.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not think anybody from this, side of the House has suggested there should not be a new town somewhere in that neighbourhood. We are not against that. We are against the site which has been selected.

LORD HENDERSON

I am just indicating why a new town is necessary in that part. The trouble is that in all these areas there is not sufficient housing accommodation; nor is there housing land upon which to build houses. The present population of these areas cannot be accommodated within their own districts unless they are to be condemned to live permanently in unsatisfactory conditions, under the shadow of the factories in which they work, without proper open space, parks and sports grounds, with schools and playing fields for the children, and social amenities generally. That is the broad reason for the need of a new town in that western part of London. The noble Lord has asked what are the principles which govern the Minister's decision in respect of new towns. Let me say that the selection of a site is not just a matter of chance. Certain primary requirements have to be satisfied, and these apply to Bracknell. If the noble Marquess will allow me to state the case, he will find that I am answering some of the criticisms.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

If I had meant to interrupt the noble Lord, I would have done it standing. If it was a remark he overheard I am sorry.

LORD HENDERSON

Perhaps I may proceed. There must be ground suitable for building. Adequate water supply must be available; drainage must be practicable without risk of polluting water supplies elsewhere; there must be road and rail amenities, capable of every improvement if need he: the location must be attractive to population and industry, and there must be room for the new town to develop without merging into neighbouring communities. These are requirements which apply to Bracknell.

LORD HAWKE

Do they apply not to the suggested new site of Bracknell, but only to the agricultural land site?

LORD HENDERSON

If the noble Lord will allow me to finish, I will give him the answer. The reason why some of these other sites are unacceptable is that they do not possess those qualifications. It is impossible to find a site where no interest is adversely affected. The choice of Bracknell was prefaced by an exhaustive inquiry and detailed consultation with other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Agriculture. We had to look as far out as Bracknell because all the inner districts of Middlesex suffer from the same deficiency of housing land, and in the outer districts four main considerations preclude large-scale development. First, a large amount of land has had to be set aside for the development of London Airport; secondly, there are large areas of good market-gardening land which must be preserved; thirdly, there are also important deposits of sand and gravel which must be kept free of building development, and, fourthly, the Metropolitan Green Belt must be preserved. The particular district centred on Bracknell was only chosen, however, after the study of many others. Here may I say, in reply to the noble Marquess, and to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that as regards Crown Lands and War Department land, they are not excluded from designated areas merely because they are Crown land and War Department land. There is no objection, in principle, to making use of this land in designated areas if the land is necessary for the new town.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I said there was the difficulty in practice of getting anything like consent out of the War Office or from the Commissioners of Crown Lands.

LORD HENDERSON

I appreciate the point. I want to make it clear that there is no objection in principle.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Not in principle.

LORD HENDERSON

And not in practice, if I may say so. If I may proceed, I would like to remind your Lordships of Sir Patrick Abercrombie's proposal for a new town at White Waltham. This was rejected because of the very high quality of the agricultural land there, and because it would have impeded the full use of the airfield. I am informed that the effects upon agriculture if this scheme (which was proposed before the war) had been adopted, would have been considerably more serious than the effects upon agriculture of the present proposed scheme. Sites to the east, south, and west had to be rejected because of the difficulty in providing adequate public services and communications, and because their use would have resulted in the merging of existing communities such as Bracknell, Wokingham. Crowthorne and Bagshot. It is true, as has been mentioned this afternoon, that the agricultural and land-owning organisations—the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the Young Farmers' Club, and the Central Land Owners' Association—have all made strong representations about re-siting the new town. As the noble Earl stated, six other sites have been suggested. They had all been previously examined, but the ground was all carefully gone over again, in collaboration with other Government Departments. Some of these proposed sites had to be ruled out completely, because they came nowhere near satisfying the essential requirements to which I have referred.

I want to assure the noble Lord, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, that scrupulous attention will be given to the objections to the use of agricultural land which have been lodged, and which will no doubt be amplified at the public inquiry on February 23. The necessity for weighing carefully any proposal which entails the use of productive agricultural land for any purpose is fully appreciated. The vital importance of food production has often been stressed in this House, and we are all in agreement about it. Let me assure the House, therefore, that the Ministry of Agriculture will be consulted after the inquiry has been held. Noble Lords will, I hope, regard this as a guarantee that the fullest consideration will be given to the interests of agriculture and the claims of the farmers before a final decision is taken. As I have already stated, the alternative sites were examined, but none of them seemed to the Minister as suitable as the site delineated in the Bracknell Designation Order. It is to be expected, however, that at the coming inquiry alternative sites will again be pressed for consideration and, no doubt, arguments, including those which have been advanced here this afternoon, will be invoked in support of one or more of the proposed alternatives. As additional proof of the Minister's readiness to take all objections into account, and of his concern to arrive at the right decision, he proposes to make a personal inspection, after the inquiry, of the suggested alternative sites and to satisfy himself before he takes a final decision.

I hope that what I have said has convinced noble Lords of the need for a new town in this particular area. I hope also that it will be recognised that the holding of a public inquiry, the proposed further consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Minister's personal examination into the site problem, will ensure that full weight will be attached to the interests of agriculture, which we all regard as of the highest importance. I will only add that I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of the Minister the representations which noble Lords have made this afternoon. I want to make it clear that this is not an empty gesture, because it will be realised from what I have said that the Minister's mind is not closed to argument. The Minister is under a duty to consider all representations made at the inquiry, and I have no hesitation in saying that he will carefully weigh the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon.

5.54 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

May I ask one question concerning the qualifications to which the Minister refers? Is it a fact that the Minister prefers to take the cheapest site that he can find, in order to create this new township, or does he take into consideration the possibility that it may cost more to take one of the other sites mentioned this afternoon? And, in any case, in order to save agricultural land and save our food will the Minister consider taking the more costly form of creating the township rather than the cheaper?

LORD HENDERSON

I do not think the question of cost is the determining factor. What the Minister has to do is to secure the land which meets the various requirements which must be met if a new town is to be built, and built for the convenience of the community and the provision of new industries.