RAF Upper Heyford

HL Deb 23 January 1997 vol 577 cc895-916

9.8 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of the partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the North Oxfordshire Consortium for the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford and its likely impact on the environment.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Members of the House will remember that on 14th June 1996 the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked Her Majesty's Government whether they were satisfied that the procedure adopted for the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters in Suffolk was consistent with their environmental policy. During that debate a number of noble Lords referred to the problems being created by the sale of RAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire where many of the same problems encountered at Bentwaters were inevitable.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is taking part in the debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. My only regret is that the debate is taking place so late on a Thursday night. My debate was originally down for Wednesday evening, and that perhaps would have enabled us to get on to the Floor a little earlier. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Earl Howe, could not be here yesterday, and we felt it was very important that he should be present for the debate.

There are great similarities between the disposal of Bentwaters and Upper Heyford which are bound to be repeated in other parts of the country as the MoD proceeds with the sale of sites which are no longer needed for defence purposes. It is therefore important, I feel, that we lay down the principles to be followed in any disposal of MoD land. In my view, it is not enough for the Government to insist that the MoD maximises its capital receipts in these transactions. The overall concern should concentrate on the environmental impact of these developments as well as the impact on surrounding areas and villages of any development. This should be our overriding concern. After all, these lands occupied by RAF bases were acquired at a time of emergency and really belong to the nation, not to the MoD.

Upper Heyford has been an airbase since 1918, but it was during the last war that it grew to its present proportions when the US air force moved on to the base. It became one of Europe's largest airbases, employing some 12,000 personnel. In May 1993 the US air force announced that it would be withdrawing from the base by September 1994. As a result, in 1993 a working party was established by Cherwell District Council, the district council covering the majority of the area, with representations from the county council and from the Defence Land Agent. However, a promise which had been made of further consultancy advice, funded by the MoD, failed to materialise. As a result, in September 1994 the MoD announced that it would ask the Defence Land Agent to dispose of the entire site.

Late in 1994 the DLA commissioned Savills to seek expressions of interest in the site from the development industry. There were many responses, some 30 or so, but none was ever made public. It was hoped at that time by the local people that the joint venture partner was to be a consortium comprising companies with a broad spectrum of development experience and skill.

The site at Upper Heyford is by far the largest site where the MoD has contemplated a joint venture partnership. As a result of that joint venture partnership, the local councils and the local community were feeling encouraged and confident that the involvement of the MoD would ensure that the less profitable works of environmental remediation and infrastructure improvement would be delivered at the right time. Locally, we are very disturbed that the consortium chosen by the MoD was a group of house builders: Wimpey, Taylor Woodrow and Westbury Homes calling themselves the North Oxfordshire Consortium. Their proposals were originally for a new town of 7,500 houses, which was reduced to a town of 5,000 houses.

The consortium's proposal was put as an option in the consultation document for the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan. Having seen the NOC presentation, Oxfordshire County Council's environmental committee, composed of county councillors of all parties and from all areas of the county, unanimously rejected the option of 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford. There was no disagreement.

Cherwell District Council decided at that time, because the base was empty, to allow considerable short-term rentals for the existing buildings on the sites, including two major car distribution and leasing companies. It was hoped that the funds generated by this activity would be used not only to preserve the security of the base but also to provide the facilities for the longer term improvements. Who collects the rents under the partnership agreement? Is it the Ministry of Defence, or is it the North Oxfordshire Consortium? After paying for upkeep and security on the base, there should be a substantial surplus to be used for any local improvements, particularly for further studies to investigate the suitability of the site for housing development. Of these one of most important should be a thorough investigation into the impact of increased traffic generated in the area. The only transport study undertaken was carried out by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wimpey, which can hardly be called an independent inquiry.

The area surrounding the base, if Members of the House know it, is a peaceful, rural area consisting of many small parishes and villages served by small country roads and lanes. If this development is agreed, large sums of money will have to be invested in road widening schemes, which will destroy some of the essential character of the area. The North Oxfordshire Consortium, when I talked to it, claimed that traffic will be channelled from Heyford through to the A.43 leading to the M.40 and that there will not be an increase in traffic on the country lanes. However, unless you put up an impenetrable fence to stop people moving into the area from any other part, you will not stop the traffic flowing on the completely unsuitable country roads.

The Cherwell Valley is a priceless heritage of rural landscape which must be treated sensitively. There are all too few of these parts of our countryside that remain that have not been spoilt. In addition, only about a mile and a half away, in Lower Heyford, which is almost part of the village of Upper Heyford—they almost run into each other—one of the most important 18th century landscape gardens in England—Rousham Park—is situated. Created by William Kent, it is probably the only one that survives without having been altered. Oxfordshire County Council's transport brief of 10th July 1995 states: Development at Upper Heyford is undesirable in traffic sustainability terms".

It has not changed its mind.

The Oxfordshire County Council draft structure plan, which has just been published, envisages 1,000 houses on the site, including the 300 or so houses already there. The plan will come up for public consultation in July this year. In the meantime, Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxfordshire Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. The bid has the support of all parties locally. The idea to have the academy of sport there sprang from the chairman of one of the local councils. It is a wonderful opportunity because it would need about 140 acres. It would take up the area which was formerly housing for officers including a hospital, which would be very useful. We all hope that this bid will get going. It has already passed the first shortlisting. We believe that it has a great opportunity to become successful.

I believe that the MoD and the Government should be open about what is happening and what the MoD is doing in its dealings with the North Oxfordshire Consortium. We would like to know the precise terms of the acquisition. I cannot understand why that has been a secret. We also want to know what are the plans for the rest of the site beyond the current structure plan. As I asked before, I want to know what is happening to the rentals that are being collected and who collects them. Is it by the MoD or by the consortium?

Lastly, I plead that no planning permission for houses should be considered prior to the examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan which will take place in July this year. I hope that we can get some answers.

9.21 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising this Question this evening. I myself had the pleasure of visiting the site just over a month ago, courtesy of the British Olympic Association which, as the noble Baroness has said, heads the consortium bidding for the proposed British academy of sport. It is fortunate indeed that the ending of the Cold War and the departure of the United States Air Force from Upper Heyford more or less coincided with the Government's decision to have a British academy of sport, because this site is, as the noble Baroness said, so ideal for the purpose. I would like briefly to pay tribute to the United States Air Force for its occupation of the site for the past 50 years or so of my lifetime, which has made me sleep happier at night. But now it is gone.

The bid for the British academy of sport at Heyford has a number of unique features, which more than meet the criteria laid down by the United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage. The bid is ideally sited at the heart of the transport infrastructure for travel by road, rail and air, with links to the existing national sporting centres. It will be developed, as the noble Baroness has said, as part of an evolving new community with 1,000 new homes being built by the North Oxfordshire Consortium on an adjoining section of the former air base. It has the unqualified support of the county council, the district council and the parish councils and features in the draft Oxfordshire Development Plan which has been lodged with the Department of the Environment.

The consortium includes both the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University, and Eton College, for the rowing facility. The British Olympic Association brings to the bid an unrivalled expertise in British sport, including coaching, sports science and sports medicine. It also brings the unqualified backing of the 33 national governing bodies who make up the National Olympic Committee together with the British Paralympic Association.

The site is to be donated to the academy by the North Oxfordshire Consortium and is also bringing some £70 million of private sector funding which, together with lottery funding, will result in £175 million of capital investment. The BOA has committed at least £1 million a year for revenue funding to add to the revenue generated by the academy itself.

One of the great advantages of the site is the use that can be made of some 700,000 sq.ft. of existing buildings, some only 10 years old, which were left in excellent condition by the USAF.

Turning briefly to the overall site, it would appear that the proposals fit in well with the Government's policies as set out in the Rural England White Paper of 1995. The Government set out a number of principles for meeting the demand for 4.4 million new houses by 2016, prime among which is to: Make the best use of land which has already been developed. Before building on green field sites, the full potential of derelict and degraded land should be exploited". The Government also stated: We have set a target for the year 2005 of building half of all new homes on re-used sites. These include redundant developments in the countryside, such as defence bases which are no longer needed as well as inner city sites". As I have said, the proposals seem to fit in with those words extremely well. As has been said, the initial proposal is for 1,000 new homes, supporting 1,500 new jobs, so commuting will be reduced. The area has excellent transport links and the North Oxfordshire Consortium has proposals to spend some £15 million on removing the old Cold War eyesores from the airfield side of the site.

I return to the proposed academy. The reasons that we need an academy for sport have been well rehearsed. Indeed, we were reminded of the need for such an academy only last summer in Atlanta. I do not need to repeat those reasons. Upper Heyford seems an ideal site for that. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, I was pleased that the bid made the shortlist last month. I do not expect my noble friend to say anything further on that subject tonight because I understand that the final decision is to be announced fairly shortly. I can only hope that this bid is the successful one.

9.27 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising a matter which is of both local and national importance. This particular area of Oxfordshire may not have the obvious tourist draw of the neighbouring Cotswolds, but it is still a very special part of England, with small woodlands, rivers, watermeadows, gentle hills and countryside of a kind that is being swallowed up and choked by traffic particularly in the south of England year by year by year.

I do not live in the area, but I know it quite well. For many years, until 1994, those who lived there were readily identifiable. They spoke only in short sentences. To embark on a long sentence was to run a considerable risk that one would be cut off and rendered inaudible by the deafening roar around the clock of one of the enormous bombers taking off or landing. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said that the presence of the United States Air Force there enabled him to sleep better at night, but I suspect that he was not trying to do that near the end of the runway at Upper Heyford.

When silence came in 1994 and the last F-111 left, the sigh of relief from those who lived nearby was shortlived. That relief has been replaced by fear—fear that the Ministry of Defence will now succeed in doing what the United States Air Force did not manage to do, which is to destroy the area irreparably for those who live there and who love it.

Of course, we must recognise that an empty air base of this type represents a major problem for the Ministry of Defence, but it could represent an enormous and exciting opportunity for a change of use which, with imagination, could benefit not merely that area but Britain as a whole. It is therefore all the more depressing and worrying, particularly for those who are directly affected, that the Ministry of Defence looks ready to settle for what appears to be the easiest option—and an unsuitable one at that—namely; a new town. The roads in the area simply could not cope with the volume of traffic that that would generate. Although there is clearly scope for some housing, it should not be on the scale proposed.

I intervene briefly in the debate because it seems to me that there are disturbing features in how all this is being handled which I hope that the Minister can go some way to allay when he replies.

I refer first to secrecy. This is not an ordinary commercial transaction. The land was acquired by the Ministry of Defence by compulsory purchase for a specific purpose. It is public land in which we all have an interest, and its disposal is a matter of public concern and should be in the public domain. Surely, that is part of open government. Local councillors and the local community are in effect being kept in the dark while the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the Ministry of Defence do a deal.

As the noble Baroness has already said, the terms of the acquisition of the development rights, the long-term plans for the site, the revenue that is being received from the short-term rents and the use to which that revenue is or will be put for environmental improvements are all matters that should be known. How else can the public be reassured?

The Ministry of Defence is not, and should not try to be, a commercial property developer. It is handling our land for us and should be accountable to us. We need to know the real options, with no secret deals or trade-offs. We need to know that no planning permissions for houses will be considered before public examination of Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan in July of this year. I ask the Minister to give that assurance tonight.

Secondly—and in a sense just as importantly—we need to know that this site is safe in view of the use to which it has been put in the past. To be convinced of that, surely an independent study should be commissioned. Above all, those who live in the 23 parishes which make up Cherwell district need to know that a golden opportunity for a truly imaginative development will not be lost simply because the Ministry of Defence has settled for the easiest option.

It is unfortunate that the only proposal about which we have heard that truly catches the imagination and is worthy of the opportunity that such a site and location offer—that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—is for a British academy of sport. That has support from all sides. As I understand it, that proposal did not come from the developers or the Ministry of Defence but from the chairman of Steeple Aston Parish Council. Surely the public deserves better from the Ministry of Defence in handling such sites. I hope that it is not too late to ensure that a truly worthwhile development takes place here over the whole site that will not involve turning this part of rural England into yet another traffic-choked commuter dormitory.

The Minister knows about the countryside and cares a great deal about it. I therefore look forward greatly and with hope to hearing replies that satisfy some of these concerns.

9.33 p.m.

Lord Bridges

My Lords, my contribution to this debate is not based upon first hand knowledge of the situation at Upper Heyford but is intended to suggest some conclusions which are beginning to emerge from the methods employed by the Ministry of Defence in selling large redundant military bases. What I have to say draws both on what I have learned from others about Upper Heyford and what I know about the disposal of Bentwaters in Suffolk. I raised that matter in a similar debate earlier this year and recently I was able to discuss it with the noble Earl.

The main question that I wish to raise is the validity of the planning process. We tend to take it for granted and perhaps grumble about its formality and the delays which may ensue. But a degree of restraint in the development of land is surely necessary in this crowded island to take account of the public interest. We may follow the Government's excellent definition of sustainable development in PPG 15. They refer to development that does not sacrifice what future generations will value for the sake of short term and often illusory gains. That can hardly be bettered.

One has only to look at other countries where no such restraint exists to see the consequences. Two examples with which I am familiar are the uncontrolled proliferation of buildings which has desecrated the beautiful shores of the peninsula of Attica near Athens and the rampant urban and industrial growth on the drained Pontine Marshes south of Rome, land which should have been kept for food production and its scarce water resources reserved for agriculture and silviculture.

It is interesting that at both Bentwaters and Upper Heyford the Ministry of Defence began the disposal of the property in the same way by appointing an estate agent who became engaged in a negotiation with a local authority with a view to obtaining permission to build numerous houses. The purpose in both cases was to increase the value of the land before it was sold. Happily, at Bentwaters, our local Member of Parliament, Mr. John Gummer, intervened and persuaded all concerned that prior discussion with the county was necessary so that an informed proposal could be put to an Examination in Public leading to a satisfactory conclusion and modification of the country structure plan.

Sadly, that did not happen, as the statutory consultees—English Nature and the leading NGOs concerned with the environment—were not as fully engaged in the process as they should have been. Although the examination was conducted by an experienced, fully qualified and competent inspector, who produced a balanced report, his conclusions were not readily acceptable to the district council for reasons I do not intend to go into here. But this was surely the correct route to follow. It is the method laid down in our planning law. It gives the leading role to the democratically elected local authorities and it encourages an open, public process, which I regard as essential in decisions of this kind. The system may not be perfect, and is no doubt capable of further refinement, but let us at least recognise that we have a real asset at our disposal, designed for the purpose, and we ought to use it.

Therefore, it concerns me that at Upper Heyford the Government have chosen a joint development partner, the North Oxfordshire Consortium, in advance of the Examination in Public. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness about the need for an assurance that no contract will be let or decisions taken before the examination has occurred. Of course we recognise the need for the closest collaboration and discussion between the Ministry and a local authority in assessing the plans for an important site such as this. But, by choosing a development partner in advance of the Examination in Public, the Ministry gives the impression of wishing in some way to pre-empt the decision at which the inquiry may arrive.

The whole purpose of the Examination in Public is to examine the future needs and possibilities of North Oxfordshire now that this large site and its extensive facilities are unexpectedly available. The inquiry will want to look at the size of the population which can be accommodated and how many can find a place in the local economy, and assess the consequences for transport in the area. These are also issues at Bentwaters, with the added dimension that the latest planning application submitted by the Ministry includes the possible use of the base for civil aviation. Many of us believe that this should not be introduced at such a late stage without some clear understanding of what kind of aviation would be involved and whether any limits should be placed on that kind of development.

As regards Upper Heyford, I believe that it would be wise for the Ministry, as has been suggested, to make before the examination full disclosure of the nature of the partnership, its formal status in law and its financial position. Allegations of secrecy may seem unfair to the Minister, but of course they do not in any way relate to him and it is hardly surprising that they should arise. Openness should be an essential part of the process if public confidence is to be won, and it seems to have been sadly lacking in this case.

I shall conclude with a further reflection arrived at from our problems at Bentwaters. Two preferred buyers in succession have failed to complete their contract negotiations. We are now in the closing stages of a third negotiation. The property is being marketed somewhat aggressively by the MoD's agents. It looks as though a hitherto wholly unknown but allegedly local company, probably specially formed for the purpose, is on the point of completing the purchase. In order to assist the sale, the MoD has submitted its own application to the planning authority, as I said, and that will probably succeed. But it leaves the door wide open to further development proposals which are likely to be strongly resisted. By that time money will have been paid and the new owners may well say that they need further development in order to recoup the purchase price that they have paid and to make a return on their investment.

That is all three-and-a-half years after the base was left empty by the American airforce. It is really very unsatisfactory and causes me to have deep sympathy with the people of North Oxfordshire who are apparently about to undergo a similar experience.

9.40 p.m.

Lord Annaly

My Lords, I too am indebted to the noble Baroness for instigating the debate this evening. I have an interest to declare regarding the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford, as I live in a village about a mile to the north east of the site. My village is one of a group of 23 parishes around the base which have formed Cherwell Valley Parishes. Cherwell Valley Parishes is worried that the Ministry of Defence has appointed a partner, the North Oxford Consortium, which is over-keen to develop a site in a way which is totally incompatible with the surrounding area.

Cherwell Valley Parishes was formed to resist the idea of the base being used simply as a housing estate on a large scale. It is not possible to cover all the issues in a few moments. Other noble Lords have mentioned some issues and others will cover others. Therefore, I shall try to limit my remarks to areas which have not been dealt with in great detail. I had intended to talk about the information flow and the secrecy which has shrouded the matter to date between the MoD, the North Oxford Consortium and the local councillors and community, but the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has already covered that and I need say no more. However, there is one matter on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister. The local councillors and community would like confirmation that no planning permission for houses will be considered prior to the public examination of the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan, which is scheduled to take place this summer. I would be extremely grateful for such an assurance.

The second area on which I shall touch concerns the planning process and the last point which I have just mentioned. Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxford Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. That idea for a centre of sporting excellence was conceived within Cherwell Valley Parishes and has the support of all parties concerned.

There is a concern on the part of the district council and the parishes that the North Oxford Consortium is using the competitive bidding situation relating to the British Academy of Sport to pre-empt the structure plan process of Oxfordshire County Council and the Examination in Public which is scheduled to take place in the summer. That is why noble Lords have mentioned it this evening.

Cherwell Valley Parishes, together with other objectors, has lodged its opposition to policy H2 in the deposit draft that allows for 700 houses at Upper Heyford in addition to the 330 which are already there. I draw the Minister's attention to Annex B to Department of the Environment Circular 16/91, sections B5 and B7 on general policy, which concern the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Those and other paragraphs in the circular set out the circumstances in which certain types of benefit can reasonably be sought in connection with the grant of planning permission. Planning permission for unacceptable development should not be granted because a developer is offering extraneous inducement or benefits. I would argue that the 330 existing houses at Upper Heyford are more than enough to service the British Academy of Sport.

Finally, I wish to mention briefly that the Oxfordshire structure plan clearly states that sustainable development should be achieved, first, by protecting the environmental character and natural resources of the county by limiting the overall level of development; and, secondly, by favouring development in locations which reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car. The structure plan then sets out Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as preferred locations for new development and states that elsewhere in the county development and consequent expansion of population will be limited.

The plan links development and transport issues fundamentally and is an admirable attempt to reduce the need to travel and the resultant bad effects on the atmosphere and the local environment. The transport infrastructure, the local geography and the existing settlement patterns of the small villages all serve to illustrate conclusively that this is the wrong place for a development of even 1,000 houses, let alone the 5,000 proposed by the North Oxford Consortium.

An independent study produced by the Oxford Brookes University in 1994, before the idea of this new town began, showed conclusively that inhabitants of new estates in Bicester and the M.40 corridor commute further and use private cars more than people living in similar estates elsewhere in the county. The study suggests that high levels of trip making and travel distances by car could be expected of new residents in this location. That would depend on a number of factors in practice, but the convenience of the M.40 and the lack of a range of local facilities nearby reinforce that view.

The Transport Principles Brief of Oxfordshire County Council, dated 10th July 1995, states: It may be seductive to believe that Upper Heyford with its potential for both employment and housing development/redevelopment could create a largely self-sufficient community developing low levels of external traffic, but this is likely to be wishful thinking. Unless the development was to be very large indeed there is no possibility that it will be self-sufficient. Indeed, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13—Department of Transport dated March 1994—recommends for this reason that new developments smaller than 10,000 households should be avoided". That brief goes on to say that, in terms of sustainability and travel reduction objectives, development at Upper Heyford is very undesirable.

Specific transport factors which would need to be considered are: first, connection to the M.40 including the capacity of the new junction 10, which is about to be upgraded with the dual carriageway in the Northampton direction, and the actual capacity of the M.40 itself. I am informed in a letter of 14th March 1995 (addressed to Cherwell District Council) from the Highways Agency that both junction 10 and the motorway are likely to have little spare capacity on existing development levels by the year 2011. The agency also indicated in that letter that it would be likely to resist any application for more than minor traffic generation because of the likely effect on junction 10 and the motorway itself. A figure of 5,000 houses has been mentioned. That would go beyond the junction's capacity.

There is a network of local environmentally sensitive minor roads which I must just mention. They are close to the site, mostly to the west and the south, and pass through quiet villages, some of which are conservation areas. There are also two restricted river/canal crossings at Lower Heyford and Somerton villages and, northwards, the minor road through Somerton and Fritwell provides an alternative local route to the B.4100 and A.43 at Baynards Green which avoid junction 10 of the M.40. Any significant increase of traffic on those roads would be contrary to the council's structure plan policies, which, amongst other things, seeks to restrict increased traffic on minor roads.

9.50 p.m.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, last week we had a full-scale debate on housing, and tonight we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of what actually happens. As we heard, last June my noble friend Lord Bridges raised the similar issue of the Bentwaters RAF base in Suffolk. That is a sorry story and it appears, from what he said tonight, that it continues to be a sorry story. The wider planning and landscape considerations were, and continue to be, ignored.

In the debate last June I was one of those who referred to Upper Heyford. However, we were running out of time and the Minister, quite understandably, was unable to deal with the matter. Nevertheless, I hope he will not mind if I go over much the same ground again, although I shall not raise the question of Orford Ness.

We all agree that dealing with the future of redundant bases in a sensitive yet economic manner is difficult. Therefore, the first consideration surely is that the process must be open and thorough. We have heard a good deal of anxiety expressed tonight on that score. I share those concerns, but tonight I want to concentrate on the planning aspects, national and local, on land use, on landscape quality, and on the transport consequences.

We have heard from several noble Lords about the county structure plan. I merely emphasise the point made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, that the plan sees Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as the preferred locations for development, not Upper Heyford. That is not surprising. After all, the consequences, if the base were to be a centre of development, would be to reinforce significantly the trend for a peri-urban corridor from Oxford to Banbury. After all, we already have Oxford and Kidlington merging into each other and Kidlington is only seven miles down the Cherwell from Heyford. Bicester, which is just down the road, now has a population of nearly 25,000—I was surprised to learn that—and Banbury's population is already over 40,000.

Some 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford would mean a population of nearly 15,000 in a highly sensitive area. If ever there was a case for an undeveloped buffer zone it must surely be here. We should remember the wise words of the CPRE in a different connection when it observed, in relation to the housing problem, New settlements are unlikely to be a helpful solution since they rarely have advantages over building in or around existing urban areas, urbanise the countryside and generate more traffic". This, if nothing else, would be sufficient reason for giving pause before we rush in. However, there is a further reason which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to, and that is Rousham. I know Rousham. As she said, it is the only extant garden of William Kent that has remained unadulterated by—bless his heart!—Capability Brown or by later development. It is lovingly protected, at great personal sacrifice, by the family who have been there for 300 years. If it was a National Trust property we would fight tooth and nail to protect it, and I am sure the family will do the same. This is quintessential middle England countryside with the added bonus of William Kent's unique and historic landscape garden. For those who like labels, it is Grade I listed. For those who like zoning, the area around Lower Heyford is designated as a conservation zone.

It will be said that the developers are reasonable people who are prepared to settle for a mere 5,000 houses, notwithstanding the capacity of the base for 7,000. It is further hinted that they might be content with only 1,000. I suppose the first point here is to ask the Minister whether the MoD, and perhaps more importantly the Treasury, would restrict their demands to this lower level of development? But even if this were the case, which of us would feel able to bank on such an assurance? The noble Earl cannot bind future administrations. Any extra development now would be a hostage to the future. In my submission 1,000 houses would be a Trojan horse.

Leaving that aside, what about the transport implications? If it is zoned to include industrial and commercial development, it will generate traffic. If it is restricted to residential housing, it will also generate commuter traffic to Banbury, Oxford and Bicester. So there will be pressure, as the noble Baroness said, to upgrade the local road network. That is perhaps the most insidious threat of all.

The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, went into the transport implications in great detail. I shall not repeat what he said. I simply observe that the national traffic projections forecast a huge increase—a doubling of traffic—over the next 20 years. Most people agree that the pressure on rural traffic will be even greater. If one adds a housing development or two, one has the possibility of a disaster.

I referred to the proposal to restrict the total number of houses to 1,000 as being a Trojan horse. That is a further 700 extra houses. It certainly is a Trojan horse because there is pressure to give planning permission for that even before the structure plan is publicly examined. That has already been mentioned. No wonder the 23 local parishes are concerned. By all means let us use the existing housing stock. By all means use the existing military facilities; they are already earning a good rent. Let us use that income to remove the worst excrescences on the north side of the base, and let us support the imaginative proposal—a local initiative—for a sports complex. But surely that should be the extent of the development.

Everything I have said is consistent with the Government's White Paper on Rural England. I conclude with three short quotes from the recent update Rural England 1996. Under the heading Local Initiative and Voluntary Action on page 11 it states: Local decision making is likely to be more responsive to local circumstances than uniform plans. We [the Government] therefore aim to be sensitive to local concerns and to work in partnership with local people rather than impose top-down solutions". At page 13 the report states: We proposed in Rural England to: Introduce legislation to establish a formal consultative framework between principal authorities and parish and town councils which will strengthen the consultative and representational role of local councils". The report continues in similar vein about introducing legislation.

Finally, perhaps I may quote a short section at page 43 on defence. The report refers to guidelines that have been agreed between the MoD and the DoE. It states: The new arrangements will ensure that decisions on disposal of sites take account of policies for regeneration and land use, including the need"— I emphasise this— to protect the environment, [and] the needs of local communities". The report continues by referring to, the types of uses which will be attractive to developers". But in primary place it puts the needs of local communities and of the environment.

The noble Earl is being rather battered with DoE circulars, DoE PPGs and quotes from the White Paper. But local considerations, local responsibility, and the need to protect the environment are at the heart of all those references. We can all subscribe to that being what is needed from the noble Earl's department. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us the assurance that the MoD will follow that guidance in the case of Upper Heyford.

9.58 p.m.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships long. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for initiating the debate.

In the Bentwaters debate in June of last year, I ventured to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that because land had been taken in time of grave national emergency at a very cheap price, those same interests were entitled to be offered it in the first place. I received short shrift from the Minister; and I accept that. This is no Crichel Down. But that is not to say that local interests must not be very carefully looked into and looked after in this situation.

No fewer than 23 parish councils, referred to by noble Lords earlier, were at one in expressing interest in doing a partnership deal with the MoD. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, told us how they received very little co-operation. I understand that it was a case of too little information, inadequate information, and that it was given too late. There is the feeling locally that they were not given the same level playing field.

I understand that 30 institutions expressed interest in the MoD's proposal. I do not know how many of those went forward to the next stage. Of course the MoD must pay attention to the interests of the taxpayer. But it must also pay attention to what might be referred to as quality of life. That was referred to in detail by many speakers tonight. We do not know whether the bid was the cheapest; or whether, if not the cheapest, it was regarded by the ministry as the best; or simply, as speakers have suggested tonight, it was the easiest way out.

The North Oxfordshire Consortium has impeccable attributes. It is of great resources and reputation. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of the Bentwater bidders, there were two so-called preferred bidders which failed. The Ministry of Defence is not infallible in that respect. The Government have made great play of an open policy in all areas of government. The various charters give effect to that. It must surely be extended to Ministry of Defence bids.

The peace dividend has brought many advantages. But one of the problems that it has brought is the disposal of MoD land. There will be many Bentwaters and many Upper Heyfords to come. So many of those will revolve around housing density. That is where the disputes will lie. In this case there is a huge disparity. There is the original figure of 7,500 dwellings suggested by Cherwell district council; and many people would want fewer than that.

I would mention the British academy of sport, and sound a note of caution. The presence, as we hope, of the British academy of sport in Upper Heyford must not be used as a lever to ask for further houses to service that academy.

I hope that the Government will look very carefully into what can be done at this late stage in the Upper Heyford situation, and that they will also look carefully at their future dealings in regard to MoD disposals.

10.3 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has just referred to the paramount importance of protecting local communities. He also warned us that there are many—too many—Upper Heyfords and Bentwaters to come. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, is to be congratulated on having raised an issue of such immense significance to the local population, but one which is also of far wider public policy concern, as was so well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

Inevitably, a number of the issues raised in the debate last June relating to the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters have re-emerged this evening. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, my heart went into my boots to learn—although I am not altogether surprised—that that appalling story of delay and incompetence meanders on, at god knows what cost in stress to the local community. The Ministry of Defence really should do better than that.

While it would not be appropriate in a short debate such as this to reiterate them all, I should like to spell out three of the points that I raised last June, because I believe they lie at the heart of this question and because I am regretfully not convinced that the Government have begun to take them fully on board.

First, there is the importance of developing a consistent policy in the national interest towards the development of the whole defence estate. The current principle above all of sale to the highest bidder, which seemed to apply at Bentwaters and again seems to apply at Upper Heyford, is not necessarily a panacea for everyone's long-term interest.

Secondly, there is the importance of these major developments being consistent with environmental protection and, where necessary, contamination being identified and rendered harmless. It has certainly been put to me that the income from short-term rentals could be utilised to help with that.

Thirdly, there is the importance that these developments of what is, after all, public land should go ahead with a much more open approach and in partnership with local planning authorities as representatives of the local people who will be affected. Here I should like to welcome the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the use of a public inquiry to become the norm as a means of approaching the challenges and opportunities for development positively and consensually rather than with hostility and suspicion.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these general comments in terms of the national issue. I do not envy him. I know him to be one of the most civilised Ministers in this administration and I believe that he must be under a good deal of personal stress in having to deal with this situation.

I now turn to underline some of the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and other noble Lords. These are questions of concern to many of the people of North Oxfordshire with regard to the situation at Upper Heyford. First, what are the exact terms of the lease enjoyed by the North Oxfordshire Consortium? Secondly, why was the lease awarded to this consortium, whose initial plan to build upwards of 5,000 houses was not consistent with the Oxfordshire structure plan and was unanimously rejected, as the noble Baroness reminded us, by councillors of all political persuasions on Oxfordshire County Council's environment committee.

Thirdly, why were the responsible local planning authorities not much more closely consulted over the disposal of such large areas of public land, the development of which will obviously have huge planning implications? I understand that there is considerable local support for the idea of the sports academy, which sounds an imaginative and exciting concept, deserving of the most serious consideration. In that context it is obviously essential to be certain that the site is suitable in terms of transport, access and wider strategic planning. There are those, it seems—their views have been put to me—who suggest that the sports centre is being put forward as a cairot to encourage acceptance of a private development plan. It is a pity that that suspicion should have arisen because I share the enthusiasm expressed by other noble Lords this evening. That makes it all the more important to demonstrate that the sports academy stands up on its own planning merits.

Fourthly, why has this land been offered to a consortium which plans to build houses only for private sale when, as last week's debate on homelessness highlighted, the dire shortfall in homes and the continued high levels of repossession indicate a continued and growing need for rented housing? Should not this public land also be made available for the provision of much needed social housing?

Fifthly, why do the Government now apparently support the latest scaled-down plan for 1,000 houses when their own policy has been to regard 2,000 as the minimum viable basis for a new community? It is significant to note—I say no more than that tonight—that the Government's own chief planning adviser has been acting as planning consultant to the North Oxfordshire Consortium.

Sixthly, are the Government aware of and concerned by the results of the research undertaken by the Oxford Brookes University, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, referred, which show that inhabitants of new developments at Bicester and on the M.40 corridor have been making greater than average use of cars on journeys to and from work? One can indeed imagine that proximity to the M.40 will be a valuable element in the sales promotion for any new private houses which are built. But it will be to the further detriment of the local environment. About that there can be no doubt. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also made that point powerfully and the House would be remiss not to take him seriously, with all his distinguished experience until recently as chairman of the National Trust.

Finally, can the Government give a categoric assurance on the safety of the site to which the noble Baroness referred? There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence which gives grounds for concern. There were reports some years ago by fanners in the Banbury area that animals near to the base were dying and animals were being born deformed—a situation then believed to have been caused by the dumping by the US Air Force of fuel oil which had seeped into water supplies. There was the secrecy surrounding attempts by the county council to establish with the Ministry of Defence the levels of contamination and the bland and careful wording of the replies that had been given. There was the unwillingness of the authorities in Washington in the United States, despite the reputation for more open government there, to respond satisfactorily to attempts to establish the results of surveys carried out by the United States authorities.

There was the article on pollution on military sites, written in 1993 by Captain Orrell-Jones and quoted last September in the Scottish press, which states: The attitude that pollution doesn't matter because we can get away with it is rife in the services … Airfields pose a particular problem with their large bulk fuel installations and use of large quantities of de-icing fluids and anti-freeze … There are many cases where continuous leakage is occurring … the effects can be to pollute the soil and more importantly the groundwater beneath and around these installations". And, of course, there was the study of pollution on US military sites, commented on in an article in the New Scientist last November, which referred to contamination either from radioactivity, hydrocarbons or munitions, discovered at 22 sites in the United Kingdom.

None of that is a basis for local confidence. It was regrettable that Upper Heyford Parish Council was, last September, refused access by the Ministry of Defence to carry out its own survey. Information about what pollution surveys the ministry may have carried out or may be planning for this site (a letter of 10th September from the Deputy Defence Land Agent to the acting clerk of Upper Heyford Parish Council states that: there are environmental assessments and other reports planned for the future"), and a firmer assurance from the Minister on safety than has so far been forthcoming are, I suggest, all badly needed. There has not even been a convincing explanation of why such an assurance cannot be given.

In conclusion, I should like only to add, in joining those who have already made the point, that here we are dealing with the land that belongs to the people of this nation. The pressures on life, pressures on space and pressures on health from the overcrowding and over-development of the south, and particularly the areas around Oxford in which for many years I myself worked, are not only a current challenge but a nightmare potentially for our children and grandchildren. Here is a chance for the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, to show enlightenment, imagination and vision in the way in which they deal with this site in the interests of the people of the area.

10.14 p.m.

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

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for giving the House occasion to discuss the important development opportunities which exist at Upper Heyford. I listened to the debate and the views expressed with keen interest. I shall try to address as many of the points raised as I can, but to the extent that I fail to reply to questions put to me I shall of course write to noble Lords as soon as possible.

I do not need to remind noble Lords that the ending of the Cold War has dramatically changed the military map of the United Kingdom. Many large, important and strategically located sites have been declared surplus to defence requirements and have thus become available for alternative uses. Few such sites can claim either the central location or the potential for useful development that exists in the case of the former airbase at Upper Heyford.

There we have 505 hectares (1,247 acres) of land in the Cherwell Valley, located only some three miles east of Junction 10 off the M.40. Although the site has been used by the Ministry of Defence since as long ago as 1924, from 1950 to 1994 it was occupied by the United States air force. Following the reduction in their presence in the United Kingdom the base was declared surplus to defence requirements and is now in the process of being sold.

Under the Americans the base was a self-contained settlement supporting approximately 3,000 personnel. The site consists of over three million square feet of accommodation ranging from technical buildings, offices, industrial warehouses, hangars and hardened aircraft shelters to residential and recreational facilities.

When a site such as this becomes surplus to requirements it is our duty to protect the taxpayers' interests in general by disposing of land and property in the most cost-effective way. As part of this process we explore the future redevelopment potential so that we can demonstrate that we have achieved full open market value for the site. In the case of Upper Heyford our consultants identified significant redevelopment potential over the next 20 to 25 years. However, to ensure that best value for money is obtained in the particular circumstances of Upper Heyford we recognised that we would—unusually—have to remain involved as landowner throughout the redevelopment period in order to maximise receipts. An outright sale of the whole site could have transferred a latent value to the purchaser to the detriment of the taxpayer.

The site was advertised in January 1995 and 26 bids from consortia were received, all expressing an interest in the site. Following lengthy and rigorous selection procedures the North Oxfordshire Consortium (NOC), comprising Wimpey plc, Taywood Homes plc and Westbury Homes plc, was selected as our development partner in the following July.

The noble Baroness asked what are the terms of the partnership between the NOC and my department. As noble Lords will recognise, the detailed terms of the development agreement and the lease entered into between the parties is commercial in confidence and it would be quite inappropriate for me to reveal them, not least in order not to undermine our ability to negotiate future agreements. I am, however, happy to discuss the effect of those agreements.

The development agreement imposes on NOC a requirement to promote the site through the statutory planning process to secure planning permission for the most favourable redevelopment achievable. Once planning consent is achieved the land is to be sold and developed in accordance with that consent. In light of the scale of the redevelopment which is possible and the need to develop in sustainable phases a period of 25 years has been allowed for that process to be completed.

Because of the scale of redevelopment which is possible and the need to carry out development in sustainable phases, the Ministry of Defence has granted the consortium a 25-year lease of the whole base. The noble Baroness may care to note that that transfers responsibility for managing the existing facilities from my department to NOC, including the collection of rents. There are many businesses already on the base, including car storage and vehicle preparation, which have temporary planning permission to operate until the long-term future of the base is determined. As noble Lords will appreciate those uses prevent vandalism and structural deterioration and generate jobs as well as generating income to finance maintenance of the base, all to the benefit of the public purse.

The question was asked whether funds should not be used to finance studies on housing and so on. The lion's share of the funds from the rental stream are used to maintain the site, the costs of which should not be underestimated, and it is for the North Oxfordshire Consortium to carry out any studies required as part of the planning process.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the planning process. I believe that it would be beneficial for me to remind your Lordships of some of the features of the system. The planning process is, of course, the democratic process by which collective decisions on the suitability of developments are made. In order to secure planning permission NOC has already made representations in the Oxfordshire structure plan review proposing sustainable development of 5,000 homes and 7,500 jobs.

The planning process will of course allow all parties interested in the future of Upper Heyford to make representations. These will naturally be taken into account before Oxfordshire County Council makes any decision as to whether the site should be deemed suitable for redevelopment and as to what level of development might be appropriate during the life of the plan. There will then be a need to promote any redevelopment through the Cherwell district local plan, due for review in 1998, and to submit planning applications for each phase. All these processes do, of course, allow for full public comment and participation.

A number of noble Lords have spoken as though it were the MoD, not the local planning authority, that determines the planning process. It is a basic point, but I feel bound to point out that the MoD, quite rightly, is not judge and jury in its own case. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we appeared to be pre-empting the examination in public with our own plans. With great respect, we are not pre-empting anything. The planning process invites proposals for development, which the North Oxfordshire Consortium has made on behalf of the MoD, and public participation ensures that all views on proposals are considered before the county council and local council make any decision on future use. More than one speaker has emphasised the importance of ensuring an examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan before any planning application for houses is determined. It is perfectly clear that no application for new development would be considered by Cherwell District Council before the examination in public takes place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked what our plans were beyond the current structure plan. A master plan is due to be drawn up over the next six months and current proposals include a country park. Nothing can be decided, however, before the structure plan and local plan processes are complete. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the Treasury or indeed my department would restrict their demands to a low level of development. That is not a judgment for the Ministry of Defence, but rather a matter between the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the planning authorities.

At each stage there will be a need to balance the benefits of accommodating the growth and development of an active and expanding county on a brownfield site—which is already a substantial development in its own right—with the impact of redevelopment on the environment, highway work, infrastructure and population of the Cherwell Valley. Indeed, the Cherwell Valley's natural character, which the noble Baroness eloquently referred to, and the proximity of the Upper Heyford site to the historically valuable and environmentally sensitive Rousham Park conservation area will be important factors which need to be taken into account. The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others referred to that.

Comprehensive redevelopment would, of course, allow careful landscape planning and the removal of much of the legacy of the Cold War from the former airfield. For instance, NOC's proposals promote conservation and enhancement of the environment, and include the creation of an extensive country park for future generations to enjoy.

NOC has also promoted part of the Upper Heyford site as a candidate for the location of the proposed British Academy of Sport. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness and in particular those of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in that connection. The value of such a facility to Britain is well appreciated. Upper Heyford has infrastructure and communication facilities, together with sufficient land to meet the requirements for such a facility. I understand that the site will be considered by the selection panel along with 12 other similarly suitable sites. I can tell my noble friend that any sale of the land for the sports academy would be considered carefully and sympathetically by my department. But we will need to ensure that such a sale does not detract from the requirements set by the Treasury to obtain the best value possible for the site or interfere unduly with the alternative uses intended for the remainder of the land and buildings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked particularly about the impact of any development on the environment. The local authority, together with the county council, following the policies set by the Department of the Environment, has the responsibility of allowing development only where it can be shown that there is no net detrimental effect on the existing environment. I would say to my noble friend Lord Annaly that that includes traffic. Where the effects of development lead to an increase in traffic, these effects will be remediated under the planning process. I know that the local authority does not take this role lightly. These issues will be fully examined at Upper Heyford. We believe, however, that the site is likely to remain in largely its present form for some years as the planning decisions I have referred to are considered and made.

The noble Baroness also mentioned remediation. It may be helpful if I say a few words on that aspect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed concern about the state of the land following its use for defence purposes. The Environment Act and Planning Policy Guidance 23—Planning and Pollution Control—issued by the Department of the Environment, have emphasised the need for planning authorities and the Environment Agency to ensure that any harmful contamination in, on or under the land is removed as part of the redevelopment process. Our initial view is that there are no unresolvable contamination problems, but I should say that full land quality assessments are being carried out to ensure that this view is correct. The information provided will form part of the submissions for planning permission to redevelop the land. Any decontamination work required will be carried out in a timely, professional and cost-effective manner in order to comply with the appropriate environmental legislation. Radiological surveys and investigation of unexploded ordnance have also been completed and show the site to be clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we could not be more open in selling the site. The process of disposal is a totally open one. It is only the price which is withheld, for reasons which he will understand. That feature of the process is "commercial—in confidence" and its revelation would undermine our ability to meet Treasury guidelines on achieving the best price.

The noble Lord also referred back to our debate on Bentwaters and asked specifically whether, after the Bentwaters sale, Bentwaters Investments Limited will apply for further development of the site. It is of course entirely possible for the developer to apply for further planning permissions but the planning process will regulate that. I would suggest to him that it is not a matter for my department but for the local people and the democratic planning process in the area.

Over recent years my department has gained considerable experience in the disposal of large sites. Many of those have proved complex cases because of the wide range of often very sensitive factors to be considered. These include the location of sites, former ownership, environmental and contamination issues and so on. Of course, there are often differing views on how a site should be reused, and I must acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that we are no strangers to controversy. Although the Ministry of Defence is not a regeneration agency, we liaise closely with those who have such responsibilities. Indeed, it is in our interest to take into account local aspirations if only to achieve a timely and efficient disposal.

Upper Heyford is no different from other sites in any of these respects, although it has, as I said earlier, a number of factors which led to our selection of a disposal method which departs from our normal practice. I am confident that the arrangements put in place, which have been the subject of this stimulating debate, are such that the environmental, economic and social possibilities of the site will be both protected and fully utilised, and that the site will be put to uses of great future benefit to the north Oxfordshire area.

House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.