§ 2.50 p.m.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I say that the words "Instrument Line System" should in fact be "Instrument Landing System". The error is entirely due to my bad handwriting, and I accept responsibility for it.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will withhold approval for construction of an eight-story hotel at Meadowbank on the South side of the Bath road adjacent to London Airport; whether they are aware of the misgivings of airline pilots on the possible effect on the accuracy of the Instrument Line System on the pilot approach path if and when the building is completed, even if the building heights are within those authorised by the Department of Trade and Industry.]
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, the situation remains as it was when I replied to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on March 18; namely, that planning permission had been given in accordance with the advice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are aware of the misgivings of the airline pilots, but I am still advised that the proposed hotel would not interfere with the performance of the Instrument Landing System.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the standards accepted by the Department of Trade and Industry aeroplanes will pass 250 ft. above the roof 152 of this proposed hotel; and further, that by accepting the proposals of the Department of Trade and Industry we shall be lowering our standards in this country to the lowest allowed by ICAO, the international body? Surely it is not right that this country should be satisfied with the minimum standards of safety.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I will not quarrel with what the noble Lord has said: the figure is perfectly accurate. It is the fact that the instrument landing glide slope will be some 250 feet above that required by the planning permission.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, in view of the Government's commitment to develop the airport at Foulness, and the admitted relevance of that decision to the economic development of East London, could not the noble Lord's Question be answered within the context of a national policy for the location and development of hotels? And if no such policy exists, is it not high time that it did?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am not aware of the existence of any such policy. This is a rather different question; we are concerned only with planning permission given for a certain hotel.
§ LORD GISBOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a report in Flight magazine about a 747 which took off so low, and failed to gain height for so long, that it actually flew underneath a glider which was being towed up? If this should happen again could not an aeroolane easily hit the hotel?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, it is never possible to ensure that all the requirements are fulfilled; but it is possible, of course, that from time to time an aircraft may not fulfil the obligations placed on the pilot by the existing regulations. This may have happened in that case. I cannot tell.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would not the noble Lord pay a little more regard to the advice of those who have to fly the aeroplanes? Is he aware that it is not enough always to expect an aeroplane to perform according to the rules? Sometimes aeroplanes do not. It is a matter for consideration, and I would 153 ask whether the noble Lord will now give further consideration to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye? Can he also undertake not to build an 8-storey hotel near the runway at Foulness—if a runway is ever built there?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, with regard to the last question, that is another point. So far as the safety factors here are involved, the present worst assumed glide path is 150 feet above the highest height that, under the planning permission, the hotel can reach.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, if as the Minister says, all is fine and the pilots' misgivings are not justified, would he take steps to see that the authorities meet the pilots' representatives in order to be convinced of their error; or, alternatively, to convince the pilots of their error?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am quite certain that the responsible authorities would meet the pilots, if they wished to be convinced on this matter.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say why this mega-highline monstrosity had to be built in any case within the line of flight? What are the Jesuistical acrobatics which cause civil servants to give him an answer that a 'plane can be so many feet above the hotel? Why on earth is it in the line of flight at all? And will the noble Lord see that this does not happen in future?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, this hotel is outside the public safety zone, which extends to 4,500 feet beyond the end of the runway. If we are going to refuse planning permission for planning proposals that have not any special standing at all, it would mean that we should have to surround airfields, or at any rate the extended line of the runway, with prohibitions on any kind of building; and I am sure that noble Lords would not wish that to happen.
THE EARL OF DUDLEYMy Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that whatever the safety regulations or limits may be, the publicity given to this building must have some passenger reaction and must perhaps affect the business done at London Airport in future years?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the present position here is that planning permission has been given for a hotel. That is all that has happened. The land has yet to be disposed of to a potential hotel builder. That is the present state of the matter. To revert to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it would be possible to revoke or modify this planning permission if good reason were shown; but in that case, of course, the authority would have to pay compensation to the owner of the land.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that planning permission has not been hastened in this case just because of pressure of time, owing to the end of the hotel development scheme, in order that the building might attract grant? Can he assure us that the decision has been given on its merits and has not been hurried, as a considerable sum of public money would be involved?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the time within which the hotel could attract grant had already elapsed.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, are we to understand from the previous replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the hotel in question, in addition to being beyond the distance, is also outside the flight plan?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, so far as the criteria is concerned all that is required is that it should be outside the public safety zone; and that was set up, I think, after the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, had been at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was set up in 1958. Since then there has been no accident in any public safety zone.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can help me over a matter which worries me and which, I think, worries others? Are any wind studies made to see what eddies these high buildings make in a very strong wind? Is the noble Lord aware that some of these wind eddies created by high buildings are in most surprising position; of extraordinary and surprising strength and very difficult to estimate, even by experts? Are studies made before permission is given to erect such buildings?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to this matter. It had not occurred to me, but I shall inquire and, if I may, let him know. I may say that the maximum height that this building can reach is 83 feet.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, will the noble Lord be surprised to learn that I agree with him on this issue, and hope that the Government may show equal logic in dealing with certain other problems where, as in the siting of a new airport, they do not seem to have followed logic so much as sentiment?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am glad the noble Lord agrees with me on this issue. I have a suspicion that the House as a whole also agreed with us on the other issue to which he has obliquely referred.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the fact that so many people do not agree with the noble Lord, would it not be desirable to have a public inquiry in this case?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the time for a public inquiry in this matter has already lapsed. If anybody were to demand a revocation order, no doubt a public inquiry could take place.