HL Deb 09 July 1987 vol 488 cc743-53

3.36 p.m.

Lord Congleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Before I proceed, I have a word of explanation as to how it comes about that I am doing what I am doing this afternoon and at this time. I agreed to substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom your Lordships will recall moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 26th February with his customary clarity and skill. I agreed to substitute for him on this occasion at very short notice because a minor medical problem threatened his attendance. I am sure the whole House will join me in being delighted he is in his place. At the same time, perhaps the House is less delighted that I am doing the job that he was expected to do.

I have to pay a warm tribute, and I am sure the whole House will join me, to the Select Committee not only for an obviously carefully prepared and comprehensive special report but also for its labours in sitting for 13 days in hearing evidence and a further full day considering detailed views of the alternative bypass routes, the exchange lands to be given by Hampshire County Council and the village traffic and New Forest environment. It is good that the chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will be speaking later in the debate, as will the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, a member of the Select Committee. We are indeed grateful to them.

I supported the Bill on Second Reading and during my comments then I indicated my specialist knowledge of the area which is affected by the proposed bypass. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, and on reading the special report of the Select Committee I find that I am reinforced in that support.

Rather than take your Lordships through the special report section by section, I should prefer to pick out a few of the principal features. I shall start at paragraph 5 of the special report, which makes clear that the issue has been one between the village and the forest environment. I quote from the last sentence of that paragraph: In short, what is at issue is the difference in interests of the residents of Lyndhurst, who would like to see a bypass route as far away from the village as possible, and the interests of those concerned with the New Forest who wish to see as little encroachment on the Forest as possible". That is the principal cause of contention in connection with the Bill.

The next issue is covered by paragraph 11. The committee—indeed, even the opponents of the Bill—early in the committee proceedings were at one that a bypass is indeed required, some would say urgently. I quote from paragraph 11 as follows: The Committee therefore accepted, at an early stage of the proceedings, that a bypass for the village is required. None of the Petitioners challenged this conclusion". I come to paragraph 12 which tells us succinctly at its beginning: A bypass for Lyndhurst was first contemplated 50 years ago". At a later stage I may have something to say about that but suffice it for me to say now that since 1971 the county council has been seeking to find an agreed solution to these problems. One route was rejected in 1974 after a full planning inquiry and since there have been at least two further public inquiries into alternative routes and several public consultations or exhibitions. Have we not become slightly sated with consultations, public inquiries and so on? At some stage there must be an end to deliberation, and I think that the time has come for decision. The route in the Bill has planning permission and the implicit blessing of the Secretary of State for Transport in his declining to order a further public inquiry earlier this year.

I do not want to take too long at this stage but I shall direct your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 41 and 47 of the report, which deal with two legal and constitutional matters. I confine myself to saying that the county council has clear advice that any bypass, inner or outer, requires special legislation of the present kind to authorise a bypass that is to be fenced. This is an important point—a bypass has to be fenced. A bypass that was unfenced would be useless in the forest and animal environment in which it will be set and accordingly the Bill is right to set this matter beyond doubt. As to the point in paragraph 47 about the propriety of a Private Act avoiding the veto of the verderers, that has the appearance of being a rather wistful backward glance at preceding passages in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, which clearly indicate that the committee was fully satisfied about the propriety of the Bill, both constitutionally and on the fencing aspect. I shall quote those passages because they are important and deserve to be on the record.

Paragraph 21 states: Erskine May states at page 907 that 'No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill is itself an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or seeks for some powers which the general law does not afford'". I now direct your Lordships' attention to the end of paragraph 22, which says: The Committee would merely state that, in their opinion, an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the Verderers without legislation. As for the question of precedence, what is an appropriate course of action in one intransigent and difficult case, may he entirely inappropriate in another". I come now to the second sentence of paragraph 23: Under the provisions of the New Forest Acts, roads other than trunk roads may not be fenced without legislation…In the Committee's view therefore the County Council have acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme in this case". I know that there is disquiet and anxiety about the propriety of the constitutional origins of this Bill. We heard at Second Reading words of great wisdom from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who will address us again this afternoon. The Select Committee has given as its view that the Bill is a perfectly proper Bill being brought forward in a proper manner.

I should like further to reassure those who are concerned about the question of propriety and the way in which the Bill has been brought forward as a Private Bill by the county council, bearing in mind that it has the support of the New Forest District Council and the parish council. As I stated during the debate at Second Reading, it is an important point that there are here three local authorities in agreement about what is difficult and what has proved to be an intrasingent subject.

I conclude at this stage by conveying to your Lordships three points which have reached me in a letter from the Hampshire County Council. The letter is over the signature of the county secretary. The three points are as follows:

  1. "1. If this Bill becomes an Act it will not be regarded by the County Council as a precedent whereby private legislation is used to construct bypasses elsewhere in the New Forest without the consent of the Verderers. The County Council considers that the Verderers perform a vital role in the New Forest and the Bill has only been promoted because of a particular unusual combination of circumstances that are most unlikely to be repeated.
  2. 2. The Verderers will obviously wish to be consulted about the detailed design of the bypass and the accompanying landscaping proposals, and the County Council will take active steps to involve the Verderers at early stages in the design process if Parliamentary approval is obtained for the scheme. There is a common objective for the County Council and the Verderers in obtaining the best possible scheme for the approved route.
  3. 3. It was acknowledged by the petitioners against the Bill that the County Council"—
the Hampshire County Council— has environmental and conservation policies that are second to none amongst local authorities generally (see paragraph 33 of the Special Report). In particular, the strictest planning policies have been steadfastly enforced for many years as respects housing or other development in the Forest. In line with those policies the County Council has recently abandoned longstanding proposals for two bypasses in the New Forest at Brockenhurst and at Burley. However, whilst the County Council believes that the need for a Lyndhurst Bypass cannot be evaded and this can only be provided by private legislation, it foresees no need for any further bypasses in the New Forest.". I hope that those undertakings will reassure those who harbour doubts and anxieties concerning the question of precedents which is so uppermost in the minds of so many I know. With those comments I shall conclude my opening address. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Congleton.)

3.49 p.m.

Viscount Hood

My Lords, the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman reported on 6th May, having, as the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, has just said, taken evidence for 13 days. It concluded that the outer route is the right route for the bypass and that therefore the Bill should be allowed to proceed. We found the questions very hard to decide but considered that the issues could not have been presented with greater fairness and clarity.

I do not propose to go over the report, which many of your Lordships have read, but merely to pick on one or two salient points, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. The Committee did not consider that it was for it to decide whether a Private Bill should be promoted to settle this matter. However, its opinion was that an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the verderers without legislation.

Moreover, legislation would be required in any event to permit fencing and the exchange of land. If legislation is required for some purposes it is in accordance with past practice to come to Parliament for powers to undertake the whole scheme. Therefore, in the committee's view the county council had acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme.

I shall now touch on only two points which seem to me to be of particular importance. The committee was particularly interested in and concerned about Bolton's Bench. This, as many of your Lordships will know, is an area of particular beauty. It is a supreme village green for Lyndhurst. It is also perhaps the finest entry to the New Forest itself.

The outer route would pass to the east of Bolton's Bench through a cutting and would not in any way affect the unity of the village and this splendid natural area. It is true that those who are visiting the New Forest and come out from Lyndhurst on to Bolton's Bench, if they wanted to proceed further would either have to go over a bridge or through a tunnel in order to get to the main area of the open forest.

On the other hand, the alternative, the inner route, requires a road immediately to the west of Bolton's Bench, severing it from the village, and over an important stretch bringing in an even greater volume of traffic than exists on any of the roads today. It was the committee's opinion that this was an overwhelming objection to the inner route.

I should now like to mention timing. The alternative route, which was much discussed and was termed 6A as opposed to the outer route, 5A, was at the time of our investigation no more, in effect, than a line on a map. It had not been fully engineered. Even the line itself was not firmly established. If this were to be adopted it would require a full inquiry, with all the vagaries and uncertainties which that would bring. There would be opposition from the residents of Lyndhurst to such a route and it could mean that Lyndhurst would have no bypass for the foreseeable future.

These were the two most important factors in my mind at any rate when the committee recommended, as it did, that the Bill should proceed. I hope that your Lordships will give this favourable consideration.

3.54 p.m.

Lord Manners

My Lords, I am the Official Verderer of the New Forest, and the verderers, together with others, petitioned against the Bill. The Verderers' Court was set up originally by Parliament in 1877 to protect and look after the rights of those living in and around the forest whose main interests at that time were the right to graze animals in the open and unenclosed forest.

In 1949, after an exhaustive report by Mr. Justice Baker, Parliament enacted the New Forest Act 1949, which virtually reconstituted the Verderers' Court and conferred various powers on the verderers to enable them to protect the open forest not only for the benefit of the commoners but also for the general public at large. Even as far back as 1877, Parliament enacted provisions to preserve the forest, and further provisions were contained in the 1949 and 1964 Acts. In consequence, the verderers are regarded by those who care for the forest as its protectors.

Before I refer to the report of the committee, I should like to thank the committee for giving those who petitioned against the Bill a full and fair hearing. In particular I should like to thank all members of the committee for the courtesy they have shown to me personally and to thank them for undertaking a long, arduous and difficult task.

Although there is much in the report that I would certainly not dispute and that is helpful, I cannot agree that the conclusion is right in the interests of the forest. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to members of the committee that a great many people who live in and around the forest, including residents of Lyndhurst, are very sad and disappointed that the committee recommends that the Bill should go ahead.

These are people who love the forest, its beauty and wild life. They appreciate that it is the largest area in the south of England over which the public has unrestricted access on foot and horseback. These people, through their societies or individually, in small and large amounts, contributed voluntarily a sum in excess of £25,000 to enable the verderers and those supporting them to be properly represented by counsel before the committee. This they were willing to do because they see the forest being gradually eroded before their eyes. They realise that unless the forest is given the strictest protection little will remain for future generations.

The committee has acknowledged that the county council in promoting a private Bill has adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway and one which avoids the veto of the verderers, which Parliament, in 1949, regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest. Until 1949 the highway authority had no power to construct roads across the forest.

I accept the committee's view that a bypass on route 5A, being the route included in the Bill, which must be fenced in the interests of road safety, cannot be built without some form of legislation. However, the committee concluded that it was for the House and not the committee to decide whether there was sufficient reason to set aside the provisions of the 1949 public Act passed after an exhaustive inquiry.

The petitioners fear that any weakening of the 1949 Act would lead to further demands on the forest, and this fear has since received confirmation. It was stated on evidence to the Select Committee that the only bypass incorporated in the structure plan was the Lyndhurst bypass and that plans for other bypasses had been dropped.

In evidence I pointed out to the committee that the forest was under severe pressure and that any relaxation of the existing legislation enacted by Parliament would lead to a dangerous precedent. I assured the committee, and again I assure the House, that the forest is threatened on all sides.

Even since the committee sat, three important proposals have come to threaten the forest. The first is a proposed bypass for the village of West Wellow which crosses one of the northern commons within the perambulation of the forest. The northern commons are identical with the forest in all appearances. Because there have been a number of fatal accidents within the past year or 18 months, and because the villagers suffer a continual stream of heavy lorries, the verderers would be reluctant to oppose this bypass. However, they feel that the route should be discussed with the county council in order to try to minimise damage to the forest.

This case is very different from that of Lyndhurst where there have been no fatal accidents. Even the county council acknowledges that the roads through Lyndhurst are not extensively used by heavy lorries. However, the residents of Lyndhurst suffer from traffic congestion at weekends in the summer. I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is severe from now until the end of September.

The second threat to the forest is the fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board has plans to build another coal-fired power station within half a mile of the edge of the forest at Fawley. That is bound to have a considerable effect on the roads on the eastern side of the forest, and some environmental effect on the sensitive flora and fauna of the forest.

Thirdly, British Gas is seeking planning consent to explore for oil at Boldre immediately adjacent to the forest. I believe that bore holes will be running under the forest. If oil is found and exploited the infrastucture that this entails must have a serious effect on the forest. If these proposals go ahead, the verderers, as is their duty, will try to protect the forest and will make use of such powers as Parliament has given them so to do. Should any conflict or disagreement arise, these powerful and wealthy boards will not hesitate to seek private legislation to further their ends, particularly if they feel that there is the smallest chance of success.

In fairness to the committee, the threats to the forest were not mentioned because, at that time, I was unaware of them. However, I feel that it is proper that the House should realise how threatened is the forest, and the difficulties that face the verderers in exercising the duties placed on them by the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1964 to preserve the forest, its beauty and wildlife. After all, the forest is the only true national park because it is owned by the state and the public have almost unrestricted access over it.

The verderers and those who petitioned in their support are saddened that the committee should not have given more weight to the views of the Countryside Commission, which also petitioned against the Bill. This was not a decision of the officers of the commission but of the commissioners themselves, who took the trouble to come down to the forest. They spent two days there considering not only the Lyndhurst bypass but also the problems that the forest faced in general. Perhaps it was easier for them to take an overall view than it was for the committee, which was concerned only with two possible routes for a bypass.

In my view, it is inconceivable that these distinguished and knowledgeable commissioners, appointed by the Government for their expertise, should not have taken into account the effect that an inner route would have had on Boltons Bench, the village and its residents when they decided to petition against the Bill. I agree with the committee that it would be entirely wrong to decide such an important issue as that of a bypass for Lyndhurst merely on the basis of whether a route running along the full edge of the Alder Carr, or whether one crossing it, was less damaging. However, in its evidence the Nature Conservancy Council stated that on balance, and taking into account the damage to the environment of the rest of the route, the inner routes 6 and 6A would be preferable. Again the Nature Conservancy Council, which also petitioned against the Bill, is the Government's independent adviser on conservation matters.

The evidence of the county council's nature conservation expert was almost entirely directed to possible damage to the Alder Carr. In its report the committee states that it reached its decision on the basis of what it regarded as the most important evidence; namely, the immediate environmental benefit of route 5A to the village of Lyndhurst. That differs not only from the views of the Countryside Comission but also from those of the distinguished inspector at the 1983 inquiry. He spent weeks in the forest, not merely one day, and heard much of the evidence and arguments put before the committee.

The inspector stated that conservation of the New Forest is internationally important. Protection of its character is a dominant aim in the structural plans and policies. In implementing a proposal to improve the primary road network and to relieve the village centre of adverse environmental effect through traffic, a route minimising the damage to the habitat and least detrimental to the forest character should be preferred, and any enhancement of the village environment arising from such bypass was, in his view, incidental.

I view with a concern shared by the verders and their supporters the fact that the committee should regard village environment as the most important, or only, factor. Other villages in the forest suffer considerable traffic congestion during summer weekends and might be encouraged to seek further bypasses across the open forest. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the committee in realising that it faced an extremely difficult decision. It certainly has my sympathy.

People in the forest have expressed to me their great dissappointment about the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture in whom the ownership of the forest is vested. In 1971 the then Minister issued a mandate, subsequently restated in 1982, in which it was stated that the New Forest must be regarded as national heritage and that priority must be given to conservation of its traditional character. The Minister regarded the conservation of the forest as of great importance. This was welcomed by the people in the forest, who then believed that the Minister was committed to the conservation and preservation of the forest.

The Forest Commission, which managed the forest on behalf of the Minister, has done much that is good and laudable. It is well known locally that its officers in the forest would prefer an inner route such as has been suggested by the petitioners. The Bill not having been opposed or reported against, the people who love the forest feel seriously let down. People are equally puzzled that the committee should have attached such importance to the effect that an inner route would have on one private residence. Are the interests of thousands or even millions of people who visit and enjoy the forest to be rejected for the interests of one individual? I am told that in any event the house is now on the market and for sale.

The inner route as suggested by the petitioners will have the effect of relieving the centre of the village of traffic congestion and will satisfy the needs of the ordinary motorist, who has suffered inconvenience, and would undoubtedly do much to improve the environment of the residents of Lyndhurst. At the same time it would save some 80 acres of open forest.

The residents of Lyndhurst are fortunate to live in an almost unique area where they can wander at will. One can do that hardly anywhere else in the South of England. I admit that, by accepting an inner route, the residents will be making some sacrifice, but those of us who love the forest and care about it feel that it is not unreasonable for them to make some sacrifice for the sake of everyone in view of the advantages that they enjoy.

I wonder whether the routes selected by the county council will be as effective as has been suggested. The people who know Lyndhurst may well not use route 5A, which is far longer and more circuitous, but like myself, they may go through Lyndhurst. In fact, my average time for getting round Lyndhurst is two minutes.

4.13 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with great sympathy and care to the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and appreciate how difficult it is for the holder of a very ancient, historic and honourable office with great and important duties for the protection of one of our great national assets to deal with the problems that arise in connection with other activities, and in particular with the interests of people who live in villages in the area. It is a difficult feat of balance.

I do not propose to go over the whole argument, first because I inflicted two speeches on your Lordships on Second Reading, but more importantly because, as your Lordships will recall, your Lordships' Select Committee gave this matter the greatest and most careful attention. It heard evidence, it was addressed by learned counsel on both sides, and the matter was fully and carefully thrashed out, as matters always are before your Lordships' Select Committees. Your Lordships will recall that at the end of the day after a very full hearing the Select Committee has recommended that the Bill should go forward as proposed.

I should like to take up a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Manners, said towards the end of his speech about the particular route chosen. Route 5A in the Bill is a compromise. Those whose interests are mainly with the welfare of the 3,000 people who live in Lyndhurst wanted to see the road further out into the forest, taking the traffic well clear of the village or little town. The noble Lord, Lord Manners, wants to take the bypass inside the village a slightly paradoxical description perhaps of a bypass. He wants to go for a route which, while admittedly minimising even more than the route proposed in the Bill any interference with the forest, would create considerable nuisance at times of traffic congestion for those who live and pass their time in the village.

Your Lordships will recall that the villagers of Lyndhurst have been extremely patient. It is some 50 years—before the war—since the first proposal for a Lyndhurst bypass was put forward. Proposal after proposal has been put forward and discussed fully and carefully with all concerned, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Manners, I am sure will agree, the verderers.

An enormous amount of work has been done in an attempt to secure the construction of a bypass which causes the minimum of offence to the various conflicting interests concerned. The route in the Bill is a compromise one—not as far out as the villagers would like and not as far in as the verderers would like. That compromise route has stood detailed examination throughout the discussions, including full discussion before your Lordships' Select Committee and examination by learned counsel for the verderers. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that, while no one would say that the route chosen was perfect, there is overwhelming evidence that on the whole it is most satisfactory and causes the least trouble for the various parties concerned.

I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Manners, introduced at this stage the alleged threat of two other incursions—I gather that one was not into the forest but into adjoining lands—which he said were on the horizon. These were never suggested to the Select Committee and have never been suggested to your Lordships. With respect, their introduction at this stage of the Bill is, I think, a rather difficult procedure to follow. In any event, I suggest that your Lordships should not worry too much about them.

Your Lordships will recall that that noble Lord, Lord Congleton, read a letter from the county council that said in plain terms that, if your Lordships and Parliament passed this legislation, it would not be taken as a precedent in other cases. I therefore hope that your Lordships will dismiss from your minds the idea that, if the Bill which has now reached this advanced stage comes to be put into operation, that will let into the forest a whole flood of other dangers.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Manners, that not only the county council, which is strongly behind this scheme, the New Forest District Council, which is strongly behind the scheme, and the Lyndhurst Residents' Association with 1,200 members, which is strongly behind the scheme, but those of us, I think without exception, in your Lordships' House who are supporting the Bill have the deepest affection and admiration for the forest and do not wish to see it damaged in any way whatever. For my part, I have very early memories of it. I was at a preparatory school on the edge of it and I have happy memories of it. I think that is true of many of your Lordships.

Therefore we really have to look at this as a judgment as to whether we should expect the citizens of Lyndhurst to go on under conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Manners, himself admitted on summer weekends—and, I suggest to your Lordships, far more frequently than that—are exceedingly unpleasant from the congestion of ever-growing traffic from which they suffer right up against their homes. The one-way systems which have been introduced make it difficult even to get across the street. Noise, pollution and fumes have turned this lovely village, which perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Manners, is known as the capital of the New Forest, into a not very pleasant place for considerable periods of the year. At long last, after long proceedings and long discussions, legislation has reached the penultimate stage and it would be a real tragedy, which I think would be deeply resented by the inhabitants of Lyndhurst, if at this stage this legislation were to be blocked. That is really all I want to say to your Lordships.

The technical point as to whether the county council should have proceeded as it has, by Private Bill rather than procedures under the verderer Act 1949., is one that I do not propose to touch on as I understand it is going to be dealt with by a far higher authority than I can muster: by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But it is my understanding, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Manners, to admit it, that legislation is required if the bypass is to be fenced—and plainly it must be fenced. I suggest it is also required if some compensating land is to be given by the county council to the verderers to make up for the land taken. Both those cases, I understand, require this legislation. Therefore I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the advice given to us by our own Select Committee is the advice that we should accept.