HL Deb 27 July 1989 vol 510 cc1561-9

11.12 a.m.

Lord Renwick

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

Noble Lords may recall that I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 3rd April this year. I said then that the Spitalfields fruit and vegetable market, originally created by Royal Charter in 1682, was effectively being strangled by the City's and its own traffic, swamped by its own refuse and working from badly obsolescent buildings.

In the words of the preamble to the Bill: The age and condition of Spitalfields market is such that the market fails to meet modern market needs and practices, and the situation of the market is inconvenient for transport facilities and proper regulation". The purpose of the Bill is to permit the move of the market to a place about four miles away called Temple Mills, at Hackney Marshes. The Bill is only required at all because the charter of 1682 and a body of local legislation dating from 1902 relates to the market at its present location. If the market is to be moved, so must the charter and the local legislation be moved. The Bill does not purport to confer planning permission for anything.

The Corporation of London, which is the freeholder of Spitalfields market, the market authority and the promoters of the Bill have very properly been put to proving the preamble from which I quoted. Here I am delighted to pay tribute to the Select Committee of this House which considered the Bill. The Select Committee comprised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, its chairman, the noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, my noble friend Lord Carnock, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It sat for 12 days hearing evidence and submissions and visited both the site of the market and the proposed relocation site at Temple Mills. I expect that this was longer than their Lordships had initially thought they would need and they worked with the great thoroughness and care which characterises Select Committees of this House. We are much in their debt.

When I say that the Select Committee was of the unanimous opinion given on 26th June 1989 that the Bill should proceed without amendment, let it not be thought that it was regaled for 12 days by nothing other than submissions and persuasion from the City Corporation. That is made very clear from the meticulous special report which the Select Committee has issued. The Bill was attacked on a number of grounds but emerged unscathed.

I shall mention just two matters arising from the committee proceedings. First, the petition of the community group called the Campaign to Save Spitalfields from the Developers in reality invited the Select Committee to refuse or reverse a planning permission for the redevelopment of Spitalfields after the market had potentially moved. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets had granted that permission long before there was a Bill.

Secondly, I know that the Select Committee was greatly concerned about increasing the volume of traffic, however slightly, on the busy A.106 trunk road which serves the new site. It sought evidence from the Department of Transport before coming to its unanimous conclusion in favour of the Bill as it stood.

When I moved the Second Reading, I presented this House with a case to be proved. I believe that I return today with that case examined and proved, right down to the detail of the two minor drafting amendments about market rights and obligations at the new site made by the unopposed committee. I believe that we look forward to seeing a market fit for the 21st century which this Bill offers.

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

11.15 a.m.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was greatly concerned with the effect which the proposed move of the market might have on the Spitalfields community. I agree that this aspect is of vital importance. As it says in its special report, the committee was impressed by the sincerity and commitment of those residents and business people who desire to keep the market at Spitalfields.

Perhaps I may first say a few words about the present condition of the market. It is out of date. It was built for the horse and cart and now has to contend with the juggernaut lorry. There is intense traffic congestion within the market and traffic congestion outside it. Parking facilities are inadequate, with only 160 spaces for off-street parking when something like 1,600 are needed. The area available for manoeuvring, loading and unloading is totally inadequate. Basements under some of the internal roadways are in danger of collapse under the weight of traffic. Drainage and toilet facilities are quite inadequate. Forklift trucks are difficult to operate owing to congestion and inappropriate road levels. Perimeter warehouses are of the wrong height for modern working methods. Rubbish abounds during working hours; the place cannot be kept clean owing to the congestion. When the rubbish consists, as it does, of rotting vegetables and fruit and broken crates, it is dangerous rubbish.

The market buildings cannot realistically be pulled down and rebuilt. The committee was told that that would disrupt the market for some four to five years and successfully kill it.

Perhaps I may take up a moment of your Lordships' time by reading a little of what four residents in Commercial Street have said. Commercial Street runs alongside the market and is part of the inner London ring road. I quote: The market is too small for the huge juggernaut refrigerated lorries to even go in; so during the day, when they double and treble park on Commercial Street, they cause traffic jams stretching for miles. At night they park right under our windows for hours with their fridges on. There is nowhere for the stalls to throw away: heir rotting fruit and vegetables, so they dump it in the gutter outside our houses and there it sits, mountains of rotting fruit. The rubbish is not cleared away until early evening and by that time it has been scattered by tramps, is covered in flies and smells so bad it permeates through and makes the whole house smell. The cars belonging to market customers clog up all the surrounding streets; they park on the pavements, so sometimes you can't even walk through …The forklift trucks also make life a misery as they try to operate in small shops, and break up paving stones making it dangerous to walk. We feel that if the market was moved and the area redeveloped it would be a very nice place indeed to live". The local authority is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It has approved the move. Before doing so, it conducted what was described as the fullest consultation it had ever undertaken. Its conclusion was: It is clear that the majority of local residents and businesses would not object to the market moving". Those objecting to the move criticise the plans for redeveloping the site on the ground that the redevelopment will not alleviate the basic problems of the area—unemployment and shortage of low cost housing. These are planning matters. It is territory which rightly belongs to the elected representatives of Tower Hamlets and their planning officers, and not to the Select Committee. The committee felt that it ought not to trespass on planning matters. This was the message spelt out by your Lordships' House when considering the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he will elaborate a little on the terms of reference which the Select Committee perceived for itself. As I understand it, the Select Committee in another place concerned itself with planning matters and went so far as to make amendments which affected the Section 52 agreement. Is there a difference between the procedure of this House and that of another place on the proper remit of Select Committees? If not, why does there appear to be a difference between your Lordships' Select Committee and the Select Committee of another place?

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I am not able to say why another Select Committee may have taken a different line on planning matters.

During the debate on Private Bill procedure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said: I am told that the promoters of the Spitalfields Bill, currently before your Lordships' House, have behaved immaculately in that they have obtained all the necessary planning consents before coming to Parliament for just that section of the Bill that requires your Lordships' approval".—[Official Report,17/5/89; col. 1204.] If the proper course is for the promoter of a Bill to seek planning consents before the Bill is introduced into this House, I respectfully suggest that it must follow that it would be wrong for this House to re-examine planning matters and therefore act as a court of appeal from the planning authorities. That is the view which the committee took. I respectfully submit that it is the right view.

At the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said: The onus must be on the promoters of the Bill to convince your Lordships in your Select Committee that this Bill, to which there has been such wide objection and which will have so dramatic an effect on the community in which the market is at present situated, is on balance justified. The objections which have been made to the Bill are serious objections which deserve to be treated seriously".—[Official Report, 3/4/89; col. 972.] The committee sat for 12 days. It heard 19 witnesses. The transcripts of arguments and evidence considered by the committee run to well over 600 closely typed pages, plus numerous documentary exhibits. After considering that volume of material, the committee was unanimous that the onus to which the noble Lord referred was discharged and that the market move was justified.

I should like to turn briefly to the new site at Temple Mills, which has everything in its favour subject to only one qualification. The site is two and a half times the area of the existing market. It will have more than 1,600 off-street parking spaces compared with the 160 spaces in the existing market. It will have proper refuse disposal facilities. The only qualification is that vehicles coming to the market and departing by the northern route will add to the existing traffic congestion in the Leyton area, until such time as the projected M.11 link road is operative. That was a matter of great concern to the committee. It would not be practical to defer the opening of the new market until the road was built. Market traders could not be expected to commit themselves to a move at an unknown future date; nor could the development consortium building the market be expected to commit itself to a development which would be sterilised until an unknown future date.

The alternatives, as the committee saw them, were the rejection of the Bill or acceptance of a temporary increase in traffic congestion. The committee formed the view that the Bill should be allowed to proceed because, first, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the relevant local authority, approved—planning permission has been given—and, secondly, because the road affected is a trunk road and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry of Transport approved. The committee considered that it ought not to override the decisions of the local authority and in this case also the Ministry of Transport, those being the bodies entrusted by Parliament to decide such planning matters.

In conclusion, I should like to quote a sentence from the special report. It is the final sentence of paragraph 13: At the same time the Committee wish to express and emphasise the further view that it is, in their opinion, highly desirable that the M.11 link road should be completed at the earliest practicable opportunity in order to relieve the existing traffic congestion and its aggravation as a result of the relocation of the market". It is the hope of the committee that those in government concerned with the road system will be able to effect what the committee consider to be so important. There is nothing more I need say. I ask your Lordships to support the conclusion of the committee and grant the Bill a Third Reading.

11.30 a.m.

Lord-John Mackie

My Lords, I must apologise that my name is not on the list of speakers. However, I met our chairman yesterday, who urged me to say a few words in his support. I told him I would be saying a few words, but not necessarily in his support. However, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord: he did a first-class job in keeping everyone in order. I was particularly impressed with the way he dealt with counsel who was answering a simple question with a 10 minute speech. Halfway through the speech, our chairman stopped him and said, "What you are saying 'Mr. Smith' is 'yes'".

The Select Committee spent the first week or five or six days taking evidence. As our chairman said, we were flooded with briefs, photographs, plans, graphs and goodness knows what. The stack of stuff I have is quite tremendous. It is a big job to consider everything and try to arrive at decisions. Then we went to see the sites. I cannot add anything to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has said about the condition of Spitalfields, except that I think a complete lack of discipline has been allowed to creep in as regards parking and rubbish. The whole running of the place has been allowed to go downhill.

There is, of course, a very strong case for moving the market because of the structure of the site and various other matters. However, I am not sure that there is sufficient enthusiasm as regards looking into whether it would be better to have a smaller and more efficient market on the site. After all, the vegetable trade is changing very rapidly. Supermarkets and hypermarkets are being built all over the country. They buy direct and do not go through a market. A lot of the witnesses admitted that that process was cutting down the business of markets. One has only to go to Nine Elms to see how many empty stalls there are there which were thought to be needed at the time of the move from Covent Garden.

I wished to make the point that perhaps we do not need such a big market as the one that is planned for Temple Mills. However, the land is available and there it is. The value of the site at Liverpool Street must be tremendous. I think that had a fair amount of influence on the pressure to move. That is my own opinion, but one would have to be pretty naive not to believe that. We went to see the new site at Temple Mills. I was quite surprised to find it all beautifully levelled, fenced, gated and ready to be built on. All the plans had been drawn up for buildings and so on and passed by the local council. Arrangements had even been made so that the plans could be altered to suit some stall holders who thought the catering stalls should be higher.

The roadway approach system has been agreed with the Ministry of Transport and quite a lot of thought had been given to the traffic problem that will arise through Leytonstone and Leyton. I am glad our chairman emphasised the point that we all made which is that the M.11 link is very important to the area because of the enormous increase in traffic that will result from the new market site. I think the figure that has been given is something like 130 to 150 extra lorries, all concentrated between two and three in the morning and then up to eight and nine o'clock later on. That is going to make a tremendous difference to the residential built-up roadways through Leytonstone.

It was amazing how many topics we had to discuss, whether we liked it or not. Our chairman tried to keep matters in order on the planning side, but the people of Leytonstone maintained that noise was the chief factor. Consequently, the question arose of double glazing in certain areas to prevent the noise. We learnt that double glazing is of two kinds; one simply insulates, while the other insulates and prevents noise. The two kinds are totally different. If one happens to have a bow window and one fits the double glazing which keeps out noise—it has to be placed at least four to six inches back from the window—it increases the size of the window. We spent quite a long time discussing the problem of whether the promoters should pay to add another six inches to the curtains of the good citizens of Leytonstone and Leyton. I thought that was quite an amusing issue to have to deal with.

I am not quite sure of my ground on this next point that I wish to make. However, as I said to our chairman, I believe that we were almost in the position of being presented with a fait accompli. The site was ready and all the plans were drawn up, including the plans for the redevelopment of the Spitalfields site, though I noticed in the recently issued press notice that they have been altered a little bit. I was not quite sure why the committee was sitting. The plans were presented to us already drawn up.

As regards the wealth of evidence we received on the plans and everything else, I think: quite frankly that all the people who made out their case—that is all on paper in the evidence—should have done so before a public inquiry. If the evidence had been heard by a public inquiry, the whole matter would have been much more satisfactory. Nevertheless, we heard the evidence, and it is in writing for anybody who wishes to read it, as our chairman very ably pointed out.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his very clear exposition of the conclusions of the Select Committee, and to the noble and learned Lord and all the Members of the Select Committee for the devoted work which they clearly put into preparing this report. I wish to refer to a number of items. The first is the issue which the noble and learned Lord spent some time discussing: the traffic congestion at Temple Mills and the difficulty that will exist until the M.11 extension is open. Secondly, I wish to deal with the issue of the remit of the Select Committee, that is whether it is proper, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, to act as a court of appeal against the decisions of planning committees. Finally, I shall deal with the question of the status of this House at Third Reading in considering the report of a Select Committee of this kind.

On the planning issue, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I was chairman of the north-east area board of the Greater London Council from 1973 to 1974. That was the board responsible for transport and planning matters. What was then called the Leytonstone bypass, or the M.11 extension, was then a very active plan. It was well advanced in the planning process, and had been waiting for some time for its place in the Ministry of Transport's capital expenditure programmes. That was more than 15 years ago and the road is still not built. Despite the very proper urging of the Select Committee that it should be built as soon as possible, it is not easy to imagine how a greater sense of priority is going to be given to it simply because of the institution of the new market at Temple Mills. As is evident, these things take a very long time. I fear that the traffic congestion and the damage to the amenities of the inhabitants of Leytonstone will continue for a long time. That is a point of great regret.

I have been urged by the Campaign to Save Spitalfields from the Developers to table an amendment or even to oppose the Third Reading on those grounds alone. I did not feel it was proper to do either of those things, but I feel it is proper to draw the attention of the House to the likelihood that this serious situation,—it is worse than a nuisance for those involved—will continue for a long time.

On the matter of the remit of the Select Committee, I am bound to say that I agree with the Select Committee and its chairman. If planning consents have been given at both ends so to speak—that is, by both the departing and the receiving borough—it is difficult to see how your Lordships' House should seek, through a Select Committee, to overturn those planning consents.

That may seem inconsistent in a sense, because not only I but also the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Elton, referred in the Select Committee to the social problems in Spitalfields. Inevitably those social problems—the availability of suitable employment for local people and the availability of low cost housing in contrast with what is inevitably largely a commercial development—still exist.

The residents, traders and community organisations who from the start expressed dismay at the proposals and who presented their evidence to the Select Committee feel as strongly now as they did then. They feel that, through the actions of the local planning committees, with which they disagree, and the inability of the House—according to the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord—to take into account detailed planning matters, they have been brushed on one side. I do not believe for one moment that that was the intention of the Select Committee. I know that the Select Committee took their views seriously and gave them a good hearing. However, it is a major problem.

While we still have the Private Bill procedure, while we are required to go through it, and while issues such as market closures require the Private Bill procedure, there is a danger that local people will lose out both ways. If it were purely a planning matter there would have to be extensive public inquiries with extensive rights of representation and finally a decision by the Secretary of State. The disadvantage of the public inquiry procedure is that the Secretary of State can only say yes or no in toto. The advantage of the Private Bill procedure here is that it is possible, as has happened in this case, for a Private Bill to be amended by decision of either House of Parliament. The disadvantage of the Private Bill procedure from the residents and community orgainsations' point of view is that where planning permission has been achieved a large part of their objections cannot properly be considered by the Select Committee.

I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for me to put down a further amendment to the Bill at this stage. It would be wrong for me to oppose the Third Reading although I still have the very grave doubts about the development that I had at the beginning and also the doubts that were expressed by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. After all, this is a development which is pushed only partly by concern for the environment and in the interests of the traders. It is also pushed very heavily by the redevelopment value of the site which will be vacated. In my view the redevelopment value of the site has been allowed to crowd out the interests of many thousands of local people who would prefer, despite all the inconvenience which has been so graphically described, to keep the market there and to keep the community in the middle of it.

The only precedent of which I am aware for this House overturning at Third Reading a report of a Select Committee is the case of the Swanage Marina Bill. On that occasion it was done on a close vote because distinct new evidence was presented at Third Reading which was not available to the Select Committee; namely, the evidence of a town poll at Swanage. I do not believe that such new evidence has been produced here. Therefore, although in many ways I am not happy with the conclusion that has been reached, I do not believe that it would be right for this House to seek to overturn the Bill.

I repeat my thanks to the Select Committee for its very thorough investigation.

11.44 a.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I rise merely to say that I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right not to seek to overturn the decision of the committee, which sat with enormous thoroughness for 12 days. I believe that we are right to repose confidence in the findings of the committee and in the intentions of the City of London. I believe that at Second Reading we expressed all the guidance which should be given on the matter of the redevelopment and I can only refer noble Lords to that guidance.

11.45 a.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran)

My Lords, it may be convenient if at this point I intervene very briefly to reiterate the Government's position on this Bill.

The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in it. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has general responsibility for wholesale markets, nor the Department of the Environment, have any outstanding points. In line with convention, the Government are taking a neutral stance on the Bill.

It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. The Bill has been opposed in both Houses but has been allowed to proceed unamended. In particular the Select Committee of your Lordships' House considered the evidence very carefully and concluded that the Bill should proceed unamended, subject to the undertaking given.

Accordingly, we hope that the Bill will be allowed to pass.

11.46 a.m.

Lord Renwick

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments, most of which follow what he said at Second Reading.

At long last, after many years of planning and the uncertainties of the property market, the availability of the new site at Temple Mills for the Spitalfields Market, presents an opportunity to move the market. I believe, from the very telling evidence produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that we are all agreed that such an opportunity, if it is not taken now, might not occur again with the result that Spitalfields would slowly grind into the ground. I cannot believe that container lorries will get any smaller and there is certainly no sign of there being any more room for them in that area, with the add on effect of congestion. I believe that the area will now become a thriving commercial area, with many amenities for the local people.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for putting so clearly the position in relation to the Select Committee procedure as against the planning procedure. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the elected representatives of the two borough councils involved gave due consideration to the evidence in giving their permissions before the Corporation of London moved the Bill.

All that has now to be done is for me to renew my thanks to the Select Committee and its chairman for the work that they did.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

Lord Renwick

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Renwick.)

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.