House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1995

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): It is most important that the Government should heed the words of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Condon, who warned that "we are being driven by events" towards the arming of police officers on our streets. However, the Government would be wrong to treat those words as a prediction--they should be read, as they were intended, as a warning. Unless the culture of violence and the availability of weapons are curbed, the consequences for our society are dire. A cursory examination of the statistics shows how serious that warning is.

Column 283

In 1979, there was a one in 213 chance of being the victim of a crime of violence. Last year, the figure was one in 64, which means that the chance has trebled. Since 1982, there has been an increase of well over 80 per cent. in recorded offences of wounding, the statistical category that includes the possession of firearms and other offensive weapons. Within that category, the most serious offences of wounding or endangering life have increased by well over 120 per cent. They are massive increases in a comparatively short time.

The number of crimes in which the police recorded the use of firearms has increased considerably in recent years, and the fear and worry about such offences have been illustrated many times by serving police officers.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West): Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the statistics also show that legally owned firearms are used in a very tiny proportion of crimes, and that most weapons used in such circumstances are illegal and have never been in legal hands?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) acknowledged, gun clubs face stringent requirements, which have had a positive effect. I have met representatives of sporting interests involving guns and I recognise that there are stringent requirements, but the important distinction is between weapons held by gun clubs or by people whose employment, often in rural areas, necessitates their use, and those held in urban areas on domestic premises.

I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South- West (Mr. Jones), but the matter needs to be examined with much greater care. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley cited examples which highlighted in human terms and more graphically than statistics could ever do the problems within a five-mile radius of his own home, and he is right to demand action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley also called for tougher sentences. It is only right to remind the Minister that there was nothing in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with weapons, or with drugs and drug-related crime, which far too often involves the use of weapons, until Labour tabled its amendments. I was glad that the Minister reflected on issues raised in Committee and accepted our arguments on Report. Indeed, the Government tabled amendments to deal with many of the points that we made about the level of penalty available for the sale of weapons and for trading in them.

Other aspects of the problem need to be considered. They include mail order trade and the capacity of Customs to deal with weapons coming into this country. The fragmentation of central and eastern Europe has led to a variety of weapons becoming available. One problem that needs closer examination concerns weapons that fall into the hands of criminals after being held legally by others. I am not sure that the nature of the statistics make it possible for us to be clear about the extent of that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley gave anecdotal evidence that gives rise to concern, but we need more information. It is important that the use of legally held weapons, if they end up in the wrong hands, and illegal weapons is tackled as a matter of great urgency.

Column 284

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are stringent requirements on gun clubs, but we need to re-examine the holding of weapons on domestic premises. We also need to consider how a gun culture and a culture of violence is developing in our communities.

It is fair to say that there is agreement among the parties that we should not accept the easy solution, which would be to arm the police. The Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary have made it clear that they take a more sophisticated view of the problem.

One only has to see what happens in America, where the injuring of police officers by firearms is, unfortunately, an all too regular occurrence, to learn a lesson. One in 10 of the police officers who are injured are shot with their own weapons, so arming the police is not the solution--although, sadly, the ready availability of weapons to police officers to deal with particular situations has been extended as part of the process of responding to events about which Sir Paul Condon gave us a clear warning.

I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say about the analysis of the nature of crime, the availability of weapons, links with elements of organised crime, a subject which the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been investigating, and the specific categories on which action by the Government and the various authorities could have more impact.

It is for the Minister to show us that he has proposals to tackle the problems so graphically illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. If he can show us that he has set in train a full analysis of the problems, and that he will introduce effective measures to reduce the culture of violence and the availability of weapons, he will receive a positive response from members of Labour's Front Bench and, as proved by my hon. Friend, from Labour Back Benchers, too.

1.17 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on raising this important subject. I must say straight away that the Government are acutely aware of public concern--especially that in his constituency and the north- west in general--about the use of firearms by criminals. We are determined to take whatever steps we can to reduce and eliminate the criminal use of firearms, but it should be remembered that fear of crime is itself a social evil.

We must ensure that fears are not fed by misconceptions or the irrational idea that all criminals on the streets are armed to the teeth and shooting all over the place, because, thank God, they are not. We need to put the problem into perspective.

Although armed crime may inspire many awful headlines, it remains, thankfully, fairly rare in this country, although I accept that it might not always seem like it. When an armed crime happens, it is naturally front page news, and it is front page news because it is so rare.

In 1993, only 0.3 per cent. of all offences in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm, and nearly half of all the offences in which firearms were used involved air weapons. If air weapons are excluded, in nearly 90 per cent. of offences the weapon was not fired. The Government recognise that even that incidence of firearm

Column 285

misuse, small though it is, is unacceptable, but it is worth pointing out that the problem is very much smaller than some people may have realised.

The Government are also anxious to ensure that all possible steps are take to reduce the criminal use of firearms. The controls on firearms in Great Britain were substantially strengthened by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and are among the most stringent in the world. They are designed to ensure that, as far as possible, firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

The paramount consideration is affording all necessary protection to the public, but the controls also seek to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on those who use firearms legitimately and on the police who administer the licensing system. The possession of firearms is strictly controlled by the provisions of the Firearms Acts.

A person who wishes to acquire or to possess a firearm or a shotgun will, in most circumstances, require a certificate from the local chief officer of police. In deciding whether to issue a firearms certificate, the chief officer must be satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for having the firearm and can be permitted to possess the firearm without danger to public safety or to the peace. A chief officer must not grant a certificate to any person whom he has reason to believe to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to any person whom he considers for any reason to be unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. I hasten to add that this category does not automatically exclude all Members of this House.

Only when the chief officer is satisfied that the applicant is suitable, and that he has good reason for requiring a firearm, will he issue the certificate. The good reason requirement is more stringent for firearms than it is for shotguns. To obtain a firearm certificate, an applicant must demonstrate his good reason. He does not have to demonstrate that to get a shotgun certificate, but the police must refuse a shotgun certificate if they are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason.

In addition, chief officers will wish to be satisfied that the reason given by the applicant for wishing to possess a firearm is applicable to the particular class of firearm requested, and that, where appropriate, the land over which an applicant intends to shoot is suitable from the point of view of safety for the class of weapon that it is proposed to use.

A certificate for a handgun, for example, will normally be granted only if the applicant has a regular and legitimate opportunity to use the weapon. An example would be target practice as a member of a pistol shooting club. Certificates issued by the chief officer are subject to certain conditions prescribed by the 1989 firearms rules. Among the conditions is a requirement that the firearm should be securely stored, to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms by an unauthorised person. Any case of theft or loss must be reported at once to the chief officer of police who granted the certificate. In addition, the chief officer is empowered to impose further conditions if he thinks that they are necessary to ensure effective operation of the firearms controls and to minimise the risk to the public.

Column 286

The sale or transfer of firearms is also strictly controlled. It is an offence to sell any firearm or shotgun unless the recipient is a firearms dealer, has a firearms certificate authorising him to possess or acquire it, or is able to show that he is entitled to possess it without holding a certificate.

A person who sells a firearm must notify the chief officer of police of the transaction within seven days. It is also an offence to sell a firearm or shotgun by way of trade or business without first being registered by the police as a firearms dealer. A chief officer of police may revoke a certificate if he is satisfied that the holder is unfit to be trusted with the firearm or shotgun that it covers. In addition to the controls on firearms and shotguns, there are some weapons whose acquisition, possession and sale are prohibited except with the authority of the Secretary of State. These include machine guns, and most self-loading and pump-action rifles and shotguns. The controls are effective in restricting legally supplied firearms to those who are suitable to possess them and as a deterrent to casual criminals. They cannot, however, prevent determined criminals from gaining access to illegally supplied firearms. Tightening the controls still further is unlikely significantly to affect levels of armed crime.

We have looked at the matter carefully, and I shall study carefully what the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has said. I believe, however, that the current controls strike the right balance between the primary need to ensure the safety of the public and the need to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on legitimate users of firearms and the police.

I should be happy to place more burdens on legitimate users if I thought for one moment that they would be successful in stopping the bad guys getting access to guns. It is because I am convinced that there are no further sensible controls that we could place on legitimate users that I do not see a reason for further action. The bad guys will still get their guns.

Mr. Lewis: I accept the Minister's last comment to a degree. However, he talked earlier about the fear of gun crime, the level and the figures. In some areas, there is a sudden spate of firearms offences. It is incumbent on us, and especially on Ministers, to accept that we should be scared of any increase in such crimes. We should nip things in the bud, and we should consider that we may be--I hope that we are not--on the escalator to even more gun crime. The Minister talks of headlines. We should get worried before we reach the point when the headlines go away and gun crimes are given 1.5 column inches onpage 3 of the newspaper.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is right. Although all gun crime, including crimes in which air guns are used, is 0.3 per cent. of all offences, it is not evenly spread throughout the country. Gun crime will be 0.001 per cent. in some parts of the country and a lot higher elsewhere. Although dealing with illegal firearms is an important part of the jigsaw, it is not the sole part. Police in areas where criminals are using weapons need the general blanket of tight firearms controls, but they also need to target those responsible. Yesterday morning, 22 police forces, largely in the south, the south-east and south-west of England, took part in the world's biggest Bumblebee-type operation. The Metropolitan police were involved, along with 21 other

Column 287

forces, and the operation targeted people who were involved in burglary. I suspect that the police uncovered a host of other crimes, and I have no doubt that they uncovered weapons and goodness knows what else in the hundreds of raids yesterday.

I quote that as an example to the hon. Member for Worsley, because the solution to burglary is not just better locks--although they are part of the story--and not just registering all one's equipment and videos and putting one's postal code on them, although that is part of the solution. There is also the police response in targeting those responsible. The hon. Gentleman mentioned armed criminals in his area. Part of the response has to be trying to control the weapons they get, but that cannot be the only response.

We all know that, even if we made it physically impossible for any farmer anywhere in the country to have a firearm or a shotgun for shooting rabbits, the bad guys would still get their guns. Part of the response must be targeting. We heard Sir Paul Condon say recently--this is in his latest policing plan for the Metropolitan police--that the police would now target street robberies in the same way as they targeted burglaries.

Before I deal with the increased penalties, I want to say a word on the hon. Gentleman's point about domestic premises. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that the pool of illicit firearms is fed by the legitimate market, although clearly, guns that are stolen in the course of burglaries or other events from legitimate certificate holders will sometimes get through, and will be used in crime. However, the controls on the safe keeping of all firearms were substantially strengthened by the firearms rules in 1989. The safe-keeping conditions in all firearm and shotgun certificates place the onus--it is a heavy onus in some parts of the country--on the individual. A gun cabinet is normally required, for example. The hon. Gentleman may

Column 288

have heard people in the shooting associations complaining vociferously about the cost of installing gun cabinets; that can be a heavy burden. People may complain, but I take the view, as someone who has a gun cabinet, that that is tough luck; it is something that we have got to do.

The cabinet must be put in securely, and the police must be satisfied that it is properly secured. If people do not have a gun cabinet, they must have a gun room with a comparable level of security, a cellar with a lockable steel door or some satisfactory alternative. In addition, precautions must be taken to prevent theft during transit. Again, the precautions will depend on the circumstances of each case.

We have no evidence to suggest that criminals are targeting houses where they think guns may be stored. The hon. Member's suggestion that we should not let people store guns in private or domestic property in urban areas-- however we may define that--has the added difficulty that, at the moment, they are stored anonymously. No one has a sign on their door indicating the storage of guns. They may have an alarm system, but that is not necessarily to protect firearms. There is anonymity. Where criminals come across guns in homes, it is a random event because they have been burgling the premises --perhaps--for other reasons.

If we take all the weapons out of such premises, but leave them in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Worsley suggests, we would be clearly signalling to criminals that farmhouses are a better target, because one is always bound to find a gun there. We would also have a big transit problem of urban dwellers going to all the firearms clubs to get firearms. We would need a big increase in the number of available armouries and central storage areas, which would become prime targets.

While the hon. Gentleman's theory seems sensible--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Column 289

Broadmoor Farm Business Park

1.30 pm

Mr. Robert Hicks (Cornwall, South-East): I am very grateful for this early opportunity to raise the subject of the Broadmoor Farm, Saltash planning application, which should have been considered by the planning services committee of Caradon district council on Wednesday 24 April 1995.

I welcome the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), to the Dispatch Box, but I am sorry that the Minister for Railways and Roads is not present instead, since, as will become clear from my remarks, it is the actions of the Highways Agency to which my questions, criticisms and annoyance really apply. Broadmoor Farm is a 300-acre site located immediately west of Saltash in my constituency and adjacent to the A38 trunk road. It is a very attractive site for business development by any standards. We all hope that at some stage in the not too distant future we shall succeed in attracting to this prestige business park two or three companies of international standard and reputation. That would represent a major inward investment for the national economy. Given the present state of the economy of the Plymouth travel-to-work area, with unemployment at 8 per cent., the impact of the reductions and changes in pattern of our defence expenditure, the adverse effects of the world recession and the fragility of our regional economy, the prospect of the creation of 2,000 or more jobs at that business park is a tangible and exciting proposition.

In November, I took a delegation from Caradon district council to see the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss economic activity in south-east Cornwall in the context of the single regeneration budget. At the meeting, the projected development of Broadmoor business park was raised. My right hon. Friend assured us that he would do everything he could to facilitate the development, especially in respect of the A38 trunk road improvements. Indeed, he pointed out the role that the integrated Government regional office could play, since he had decided a little earlier that the office should be located in Plymouth. I shall return to issues concerning the A38 road improvement and the regional Government office in a moment.

Broadmoor Farm business park has been the subject of local discussion for almost five years. Statutory bodies, such as Caradon district council and Cornwall county council, have been involved, as have key players such as the West Country development corporation and the Devon and Cornwall development bureau, now called Devon and Cornwall International, which seeks to attract international inward investment to Devon and Cornwall.

There is widespread local support for the desirability of developing Broadmoor Farm business park. It was always understood, however, that no application for outline planning consent could be considered by Caradon district council--the planning authority--until we knew the Department of Transport's preferred line of route for the A38 trunk road improvement.

The announcement of that route was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the summer and was followed by discussions, informal negotiations and numerous meetings between the various

Column 290

statutory organisations that would be involved in the planning process once a formal application for outline planning consent had been submitted. Eventually, for reasons that are not central to the debate, two similar, but not identical, applications were due to be considered by Caradon's planning committee on Wednesday. One was submitted by the owners of Broadmoor Farm and the other by Caradon district council itself.

On 5 April 1995, to go back in time a little, the Department of the Environment wrote to Caradon district council--my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary wrote to me at the same time--indicating that if Caradon district council were minded to grant outline planning permission, the application should first be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow him to consider whether it should be called in for his decision. That direction, issued by the Government office for the south-west under the provisions of article 14 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, was anticipated and understandable. In other words, a month ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment was safeguarding his and the Government's position. Indeed, the advice of Caradon's planning officers to the planning services committee for its meeting on Wednesday was that outline planning consents were warranted subject to conditions, which no doubt the Secretary of State for the Environment would have carefully examined subsequently.

We now come to the reason why I have called for this debate. Just 24 hours before Caradon's planning services committee meeting, Caradon's director of planning services received a letter from the Exeter office of the Highways Agency directing Caradon to refuse the two applications on grounds of "prematurity". I was not quite certain that such a word existed in the English language. I hope that I have pronounced it correctly.

To say that we were all caught off balance by that action at such a late hour would be an understatement. Annoyance and anger would be a more accurate description of our feelings. On Tuesday, I was chairing the Committee considering the Child Support Bill when I was informed of the action. The Committee's proceedings were very tranquil and orderly and progress was being made. My mood changed pretty smartly when I received information from Caradon's chief executive about the actions of the Highways Agency. To put it bluntly, having got so far in this protracted process, I wondered what was going on. On Tuesday afternoon before my Committee resumed, I telephoned the private offices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to discover what was happening. As a consequence, on the Wednesday, Caradon's planning committee sensibly deferred the two planning applications.

The Highways Agency's decision raises a number of important issues and I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the following questions, although I accept that responsibility really rests with my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads. First, why was there such short notice? It was given just 48 hours ahead of Caradon's planning committee meeting. Is that normal when everyone knew about the planning application as a result of the informal discussions that had been taking place over the previous six months or so?

Column 291

Secondly, what were the reasons for issuing the direction at that late stage? As I have said, we--Caradon district council, myself and all the interested parties--were always led to believe that once the Department of Transport had made known its preferred line of route for the A38 trunk road improvement between Saltash and Trerulefoot, there was no reason in principle why an application for outline consent could not be considered.

Discussions had been taking place between the applicants' professional advisers and the Highways Agency about road links serving the Broadmoor business park in the event of the business park being developed before the A38 trunk road improvement scheme to which I have referred. The Secretary of State for the Environment had informed us that, before any outline planning consent could be confirmed by Caradon, he would want to see the papers. Surely his actions safeguarded the position.

That brings me to my third question. What was the role of the integrated Government regional office? Among others, the office contains Department of the Environment and Department of Transport personnel. Surely the purpose of the office is to prevent such nonsense from taking place where the right arm of government does not know what the left arm is doing.

Fourthly, does not the Highways Agency realise the economic, social and political importance of the project not only to my constituency and the Plymouth travel-to-work area but to the United Kingdom as a whole, given the inward investment potential?

I am not talking about some tin-shack commercial development proposal. It involves 300 acres with a job creation potential of 2, 000 or more in an area that has suffered adversely economically as a consequence of changes in defence, the rundown in our basic employment source, the world recession and from an economy which is still very fragile. The aim is to attract two or three major inward investors to the United Kingdom on that site.

If my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the logic of what I have said, my fifth question is will the Highways Agency now withdraw the direction to refuse? I hope, as do my constituents, Caradon district council and the developers, that we can now get on with this exciting and major project.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Department of Trade and Industry calls itself the Department of enterprise. However, here we have a project from the private sector, supported by the public sector, yet that very enterprise is being stifled as a direct consequence of the actions of the Highways Agency. We want to get on with the job because it will have very positive, beneficial and favourable consequences not only for my constituency and for the region, but for the United Kingdom as a whole.

1.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I want to respond to some of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads. I will ensure that he receives a copy of the points that have been raised, even if I have to sign the copy of Hansard and send it to him myself.

I understand the concerns expressed emphatically by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) about Broadmoor Farm business park. From

Column 292

earlier discussions, I also understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is concerned about the matter. As has been said, the land in question at Broadmoor Farm is an area of 450 acres and is located to the north-west of Saltash on the west side of the Tamar river, opposite the city of Plymouth. Although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East is aware of its position, at least what I have said enables me to get the picture.

The area of land is substantial and it is unique in the far south-west. It lies close to the heart of the sub-region. It is generally free of planning constraints--at least it was--and it is physically capable of development. It is also in a limited number of ownerships. The land lies adjacent to, and north of, the A38. Those are important attributes affecting the potential for development in the future, particularly in that area.

The Government are concerned to secure the long-term prosperity of the important sub-region and have taken positive steps to secure that objective generally, and in relation to the particular site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East explained, we established last year a joint Government office for the south-west in Plymouth to help to secure an integrated approach to promotion, planning and investment in the sub- region. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the presence and local availability of senior Government officers and officials, who appreciate the interests and concerns of his constituents and of those throughout Cornwall and Devon.

The most important consideration to be borne in mind is that, as my hon. Friend has explained, the site is attractive and suitable for major inward investment. Such a site is at a premium in the sub-region and that gives added importance to the future designation and use of the land at Broadmoor Farm.

The current development plans for the area are the approved Cornwall structure plan, which looks ahead to the year 2001, and the county countryside local plan. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, neither makes provision for development at Broadmoor Farm. The county is consulting on a new structure plan looking to the year 2011 and Caradon district council has placed its district local plan on deposit for objections. Both those plans include proposals for major investment at Broadmoor Farm.

We are concerned that that unique asset should be effectively preserved for a single major inward investment and should not be subject to piecemeal development that could and should be accommodated satisfactorily on other sites already designated for business use or with planning permission. I am aware from my hon. Friend's approach and the points that he made that he agrees with that; obviously, Caradon district council also agrees.

The Government's view of the potential of Broadmoor Farm and its wider economic value is reflected in the decision to realign the preferred route of the A38 improvement scheme, which was announced in November 1994. The Government office registered a strong interest with the Highways Agency in maintaining the integrity of the Broadmoor Farm site following the earlier public consultations on the preferred route. As my hon. Friend is aware, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads agreed to adjust the preferred route to avoid bisecting the Broadmoor Farm site after full discussion

Column 293

with local authorities and landowners' agents-- [Interruption.] From the noises behind me, it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East accepts that that was a helpful response. The Highways Agency considers that it has had useful discussions with all parties involved, and it intends to continue those meetings as the A38 improvement scheme progresses through the next design stage towards publishing draft line and side road orders. That will enable the agency to remain aware of both the local planning authority's and the developer's plans as they are formulated. Such decisions will provide scope for modifying the design of the trunk road through negotiation, where appropriate.

Although the timing and progress of the A38 improvement is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I am aware that those matters can be affected positively where there is the prospect of a contribution from developers towards the cost of the scheme.

I should now like to refer to more recent events. Last autumn, the principal landowner, W. H. Bond and Sons, submitted a planning application to Caradon district council to develop 260 acres of the 450-acre Broadmoor Farm site. In January this year, Caradon submitted its outline planning application for 395 acres of land within the site. After careful consideration, on 5 April I authorised the Government office to issue a direction under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act General Development Order 1988. That direction requires Caradon district council to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment any planning application that it proposes to approve affecting land within the defined site. I informed my hon. Friend of that action at that time and of the reasons for it, which he and the council accept. The House will appreciate that I must be extremely cautious in my remarks, lest I inadvertently prejudice any future planning application in that locality, determination of which falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The article 14 direction leaves Caradon district council free to consider all planning applications and to reach its conclusions on them. The standing direction relates tothe site and remains in force until it is removed. It is necessary to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the wider national and regional implications of any planning applications and whether he should call them in for his own determination. In parallel with the action by my Department, the Highways Agency has been considering the implications of the current planning applications for the trunk road network in the vicinity of Broadmoor Farm.

In December 1994, the Highways Agency was consulted by Caradon district council on the planning application by W. H. Bond and Sons and the accompanying traffic impact assessment. As the development would have a significant impact on the existing highway network, the Highways Agency commissioned consultants to evaluate the traffic impact assessment, including the likely impact on the trunk road capacity and safety of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development.

Column 294

On 25 January, the Highways Agency sent its preliminary views to the director of planning services at Caradon district council. It explained--I think that my hon. Friend will accept this--that the development would cause severe capacity problems at the A38 Carkeel roundabout, and that it was unlikely that any worthwhile increase in peak- hour capacity could be achieved without some form of grade-separated junction, as proposed in the A38 Saltash to Trerulefoot improvement scheme.

In early February, the Highways Agency also met the developer's consultants, who agreed to provide more detailed information on the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. On 14 March, Caradon district council consulted the Highways Agency about its planning application for 160 hectares. That development relied on the proposed A38 and A388 road improvements for access and the availability of sufficient road capacity.

In relation to both planning applications, the Highways Agency considered carefully whether the trunk road interests could be adequately protected by requiring planning conditions to be attached to the planning consents sought. Its legal advice, consistent with the guidance given in Department of the Environment circular 1/85, is that any condition which the Highways Agency devised would be invalid. That follows the uncertainties associated with the statutory authorisation and execution of the proposed A38 road improvements. Any conditional consent granted now would be incapable of implementation by the applicant within the normal period of the planning consent.

Consequently, the Highways Agency came to the view that the Broadmoor Farm development applications were premature pending publication of draft orders for the A38 Saltash to Trerulefoot improvement and a detailed assessment of the development's traffic impact. That left the agency with no option other than to direct refusal on grounds of prematurity. The notifications were issued on 21 April. A few days later, the county surveyor of Cornwall county council, as the local highways authority, similarly advised refusal of the applications for the same reasons.

The Highways Agency would have been neglecting its responsibilities for the trunk road network if it had not acted and had left my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment to call in the applications because of their trunk road implications. Such a course of action would also have involved all parties in the unnecessary expense of a public inquiry.

The Highways Agency has made it clear that it has no objection in principle to development at that location, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the highway issues, and that it appreciates the wider economic and social importance of the potential development site. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads has recently and urgently reviewed the circumstances in which the Highways Agency issued directions to Caradon district council relating to the proposed development at Broadmoor Farm. Furthermore, he has been stimulated to put in hand urgent arrangements for a meeting which will involve him and my hon. Friend, along with the developers, the district council and the Highways Agency to explore the possibilities.

It is worth explaining the importance of the site and the concern to bring work and industry of national importance to the area. The Government are seriously concerned.

Column 295

There have been long discussions, perhaps not at public meetings but certainly between officials of the various agencies and the council. Although the notice was short, it should have been foreseen. Nevertheless, the fact that a Transport Minister is calling a meeting with all parties will stimulate a faster and more positive response. The reason for that is that the Government are concerned to secure the long-term prosperity of that important sub-region, of which the site is an important part.

We must recognise the importance of attracting new investment to help to diversify and revive the economy in the area, which, as my hon. Friend said, has been badly affected by the rundown of the defence industry. It is worth touching on some of the constructive things that we are doing to approach the problem.

The Plymouth development corporation is charged with revitalising three key waterfront sites leased by the Ministry of Defence, and it currently has a budget of £40 million.

Mr. Hicks: Before my hon. Friend refers to the generality, I should like to concentrate his mind again on the Broadmoor site--I could have written nine tenths of his speech. Clearly, the Department of the Environment fully supported what we are trying to do locally in the partnership between the private sector and the public sector. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend. If the Highways Agency will not withdraw the direction to refuse, it must accept that the development in principle at Broadmoor may proceed before the A30 trunk road improvement scheme, provided the necessary arrangements are made to meet increased traffic flows--at the Carkeel roundabout matter in particular--so that the road structure can accommodate the increased flows during the interim period. That is what I am asking.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for what seems to be an eminently sensible approach. I hope that we can persuade my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads constructively to use the meeting to see whether he, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the developers, the district council and the Highways Agency could improve the chances of speeding up the development of that important site.

It is clear that planning approval for substantial developments on the site depends on the development and improvement of the main roads highway. It turns on the successful completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance. However, I do not see why we cannot expect, as a result of the meeting, a constructive approach from all parties in an attempt to ensure that this key site is used for the benefit of industry in the area--although, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, its national economic importance must also be recognised.

Column 296

Burtonwood Air Base

2 pm

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South): I must begin by declaring an interest. As well as representing the area, I live next to the northern perimeter fence of the Burtonwood air base, and can therefore speak with real conviction about the problems that face my constituents and me.

Burtonwood air base has an important place in the history of our country, particularly in view of the part that it played in the defence of Britain and the rest of Europe in the second world war. From 1942, it was the depot that received goods flown and shipped in from across the Atlantic; after the cessation of hostilities in 1945, it became a long-term storage depot for the United States army. Another relatively important part of its history was its usefulness during the Berlin airlift, and its immense importance during the cold war.

Until recently, the air base was characterised by its use for long-term storage by the US army, with short vehicle movements into and out of the complex and a good many rail deliveries. That happened for 40 or 50 years, but I should emphasise that no aeroplane has entered the base for at least that time: the term "air base" does not really give an accurate description of what has been going on there. Over the past 10 years, what has actually evolved at the base is a high-quality residential development. The Warrington and Runcorn development corporation--a direct agent for the Department of the Environment--and, latterly, the Commission for the New Towns, which is also a direct agent for the Department, have granted planning permission to land allocations for residential use to the east, north and west of the base. That completes a residential development around the base--north, south, east and west.

A brochure published in 1987 by Fairclough Homes made it clear that the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation had high expectations for this part of my constituency. The brochure described the area as a

"carefully chosen location with an abundance of trees, bushes and flowers adorning its landscaped gardens and peaceful cul-de-sac approach road, Chestnut Grange offers a tranquil and idyllic setting for this delightful range of elegant homes."

Indeed, it persuaded people to come and buy new homes in this village setting.

What has happened since then? In 1992, the US army air force decided that it had no future use for the air base, and would vacate the premises in the summer of 1993. From that moment on, I have attempted to persuade the Ministry of Defence to engage in a sensible planning approach to the future use of the base. On 15 July 1993, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the development in west Warrington--the MOD site at Burtonwood air base and the Property Services Agency site on Burtonwood road, Great Sankey, Warrington, Cheshire.

The letter was succinct. I wrote:

"The above two Government sites are in my constituency. The PSA site is identified in the Warrington Local Plan for residential and associated development. The Airbase site will soon be left vacant by the US Army Airforce and decisions as to whether the MOD are to put the site to further domestic military use is expected soon. The two sites cover a massive area in close proximity to the Omega site which is ear-marked for large scale industrial/commercial development. It is obvious that the current presumptions in favour of development of the PSA site and Omega site, together with a continued military use or further development of the Burtonwood

Column 297

Airbase site will place an intolerable burden on the infrastructure in this part of my constituency. Likewise, it would have a major impact upon the environment in this rural suburban area which would not only be detrimental to the locality and its residents, it would also adversely affect the economic health of the town of Warrington.

A positive way forward would be for a comprehensive and integrated approach to future development in this part of my constituency. This should include: --

1) a clear statement on the future use of Burtonwood Airbase; 2) a detailed analysis of the infrastructure needs to ensure that all the proposed development can be accommodated;

3) an environment impact study to ensure that any proposed development is suitable for the area;

4) an appraisal of the current deficiencies in community provision to ensure these are met in any proposed development; and 5) a co-ordinated approach to the development of the three sites in line with the planning framework provided by the Warrington Local Plan.

To take this matter forward in a comprehensive manner, a multi-agency approach needs to be adopted that will give equal consideration to the needs of The Department for the Environment, the Ministry of Defence and Warrington Borough Council. Can I suggest that the Commission for New Towns is given a lead role in this matter, to prepare a fully comprehensive planning brief based upon a full environmental/social impact assessment. This, I am sure, offers a positive way forward of dealing with a potentially very complicated and damaging planning situation."

When I wrote those words, I did not know that we would be faced today with a commercial use of the air base that has resulted in a loss of residential amenities for my constituents. I was disappointed to receive a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, dated 11 August 1993, which stated:

"it is doubtful if the Ministry of Defence will be able to help significantly with those aims".

Part of the air base that we are discussing is Header house, which contains 1.6 million sq ft of warehouse storage space. In the middle of last year, the land agents for the Ministry of Defence advertised to the commercial world that they would let the building at a rent of £1.50 a square foot. Simple mathematics tell us that if the building is completely occupied--as it is--that will mean some £3.2 million in revenue for the MOD. That is the start of the problem.

Without consulting local Members of Parliament, Warrington borough council's planning authority or local residents, the MOD unilaterally decided to let the air base as a storage depot for heavy goods vehicles and trailers. It made that decision overnight.

I know that the Minister is not responsible for the air base, but I ask him to picture Burtonwood road--a narrow country lane, classified not as an A road or a B road but as a C road. It has no street lights and no footpath; in places, the carriageway, if it can be called that, is only 17 ft wide, not wide enough to allow two HGVs to pass each other. Each week, 5,000 38- tonne juggernauts thunder down Burtonwood road on their journey to and from the air base.

Those who have the misfortune to live in or off Burtonwood road are prisoners in their own homes. They must now constantly suffer the noise, vibration, diesel emissions and exhaust pollutants--all the disturbance produced by vehicle movements past their front windows 24 hours a day, seven days a week. My constituents' sleep is regularly disturbed, and local doctors have confirmed to me in writing that the volume of traffic in the road is

Next Section

Home Page