---

Column 114

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Milburn, Alan

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Olner, Bill

Pike, Peter L

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Raynsford, Nick

Reid, Dr John

Rendel, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Rooker, Jeff

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Short, Clare

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Spellar, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Wicks, Malcolm

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Winnick, David

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Wright, Dr Tony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

---

Column 114

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

---

Column 115

Wroxham-Hoveton Bypass

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Dr. Liam Fox.]

9.37 pm

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): I am most grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate, which gives me the opportunity to bring before the House the worst case of its kind that I have come across in my 12 years as a Member of Parliament.

My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Balchin, have had their lives completely ruined through no fault of their own. Their misfortune is entirely due to the heavy-handed, unsympathetic and, I have to say, incompetent treatment that they have received at the hands of the authorities responsible for building a bypass beside their home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London in his place, although he is not personally responsible for the events that I shall describe. If I use strong language, I trust that he will understand. I am not aiming at him, but I trust that, by the time I have finished, he will entirely understand why I use it. Mr. and Mrs. Balchin were living happily in their house called Swan's Harbour until along came Norfolk county council, aided and abetted by the Department of Transport, with plans to build the A1151 Wroxham-Hoveton bypass just 32 yd from their property. The result of the exercise was that Swan's Harbour became unsaleable and valueless. The security that the house had given to Mr. Balchin's business was removed, and the business collapsed. It no longer exists, and the house stands deserted. Huge debts are owed to both bank and building society, and Mr. and Mrs. Balchin have had to stand helplessly by while all this happened.

Before granting planning permission for the bypass, the Department of Transport clearly indicated that it expected Norfolk county council, which is responsible for the scheme, to take care of Mr. and Mrs. Balchin. The council refused to do so. The result has been the loss of their home, the loss of their business and eight years of misery, with no one prepared to accept responsibility for what has happened.

The bypass was first proposed by Norfolk county council in 1984, and a public inquiry was held in 1990. The case first came to my attention in 1992, when Mr. and Mrs. Balchin, having been forced to leave their home, came to live in my constituency. The decision by the Secretary of State to allow the bypass to go ahead was conveyed to Norfolk county council in a letter signed by Mr. J. W. Horton, dated 3 June 1992.

In a moment, I shall read a couple of extracts from that letter to Norfolk county council, but before I do, I should state that Mr. and Mrs. Balchin's house was worth £375,000 and had been sold for that sum before the news of the bypass drove the potential purchaser away. I shall quote from a letter to Mr. Balchin from William H. Browne, a well-known and reputable estate agent:

"Due to the very close proximity of the proposed, and now confirmed, route of the Wroxham bypass, the proximity of the proposed flyover and underpass being so close and intrusive, I consider that at this particular moment in time the property is unsaleable on the open market. The prospect of the construction work and ultimate usage of the bypass would, without doubt, dissuade any potential purchaser".

---

Column 116

Overnight, a £375,000 house with a potential purchaser became unsaleable and the Balchins' world started to collapse.

Was that foreseeable? Of course it was. The minutes of Norfolk county council's planning and transportation committee as far back as 17 December 1987 state:

"the value of the property is considerably reduced by the proposed bypass. And Mr. Balchin uses the property as security for business loans. He claims that the decrease in value, due to the bypass, will reduce the amount he can borrow, and he believes this will adversely affect his business as a property developer. The bypass, when built, would completely alter the character of the house. If the Council does purchase, the price could be in the region of £325,000 to £375, 000".

One interesting note in the minutes states:

"if the Council does not purchase Swan's Harbour, the owner will only be entitled to claim for depreciation due to physical factors. It is difficult to assess the extent of these in advance, but it is unlikely that more than £50,000 in current values will be payable". I remind the House that, so far, Mr. and Mrs. Balchin have not seen a single penny from Norfolk county council or from anyone else, and have spent a fortune in time and money trying to defend themselves. The final recommendation of Norfolk county council's planning and transportation committee on that day states:

"As the owner has no statutory rights to insist on the property being acquired, Members are recommended not to agree to this purchase".

I ask the House to remember that date--17 December 1987--because it was the date on which Norfolk county council set its face against doing what was right, and it has stubbornly, and against all sense of natural justice, clung to that decision ever since.

I now turn to the Department of Transport's letter dated 3 June 1992, informing Norfolk county council of the Secretary of State's decision to allow the bypass to be built. For the sake of clarity and the record, I shall quote one or two sections from that letter. In the section dealing with the objector's case, paragraph 24 states: "Swan's Harbour will be particularly affected, being so physically dominated by the route that no countermeasures could reduce the impact. Searches in 1984 did not reveal a proposed bypass and Swan's Harbour has been substantially improved since then. The property is unsaleable and your Council refuses to buy it. The effects of the proposal have been devastating on the owners. The Council should be directed to purchase all the properties seriously affected by the proposals."

Under the heading "Inspector's Conclusions and Recommendations", paragraph 44 states:

"The proposals will have an adverse effect on the general ambiance of the high-quality Beech Road residential area and on Timberley Lodge, Swan's Harbour and Copperbeech Cottage. Whilst your Council has given adequate assurances in relation to construction and other problems at Timberley Lodge, the same cannot be said for Swan's Harbour and Copperbeech Cottage. The road would overpower these properties despite the effects of any countermeasures. If a decision is made in favour of this route, adequate compensation arrangements should be made urgently in respect of Swan's Harbour, particularly in view of the owners' financial situation."

When it comes to conclusions, under paragraph 50, after saying that the eastern bypass should be constructed, the letter recognises all the disadvantages that the route will have--particularly for people--but also recognises that those disadvantages can be mitigated to some extent by compensation.

---

Column 117

Paragraph 51 states:

"sympathetic consideration should be given to the particular adverse effects that confirmation of an Eastern route would have on Swan's Harbour and Copperbeech Cottage and the plight of the owners".

Crucially, under the heading "The Secretary of State's Decision", in paragraph 62 appears the following:

"It is noted that the Inspector has drawn particular attention in his conclusions at Paragraph 11.47 to certain matters arising from his consideration of the Orders and Bridge scheme. He called for `sympathetic consideration' by your Council of the plight of the owners of Swan's Harbour and Copperbeech Cottage. And finally, he said that whilst they are not for his consideration here, the Secretary of State is confident that your Council will give these matters early consideration".

At the end comes the sting in the tail:

"Details of compensation arising in consequence of the confirmation of these Orders are for negotiation with the acquiring authority, not with the Secretary of State."

Having said that he hopes that Norfolk county council will take steps to look after Mr. and Mrs. Balchin as a matter of urgency, the Secretary of State fails to take the one step that would have guaranteed their protection: the withholding of his consent to the scheme until the different parties concerned had arrived at a fair settlement.

I suppose that, in some ways, it was not unreasonable for the Secretary of State to think that Norfolk county council might behave as he wished--with reason, fairness and a little compassion; but I am afraid that he was gravely mistaken. Norfolk county council hid behind the letter of the law, and refused to help. I remind the House again of the recommendation that its officers had made, which was endorsed by elected members:

"As the owner has no statutory rights to insist on the property being acquired, Members are recommended not to agree to this purchase".

In the hope that I might persuade someone on Norfolk county council to realise just how unfair the council had been, I wrote to the leaders of the three main political groups--Mrs. Cameron, Mrs. King and Mr. Revell-- explaining Mr. and Mrs. Balchin's distress and urging them to look at the case again. I received a reply from Mr. Barry Capon, Norfolk county council's chief executive and clerk. The final paragraph stated:

"The decision not to purchase Mr. Balchin's house was taken without dissent, by agreement across all parties, and they do not see any good and sufficient reason to raise the matter again". I can only say that I hope that those ladies and gentlemen are able to sleep soundly in their beds at night--in their unblighted homes--and that they do not call to mind too often the way in which they have destroyed one family.

For a number of years, I have been a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration--in other words, the parliamentary ombudsman. Over those years, I have seen many cases of this kind. As Mr. and Mrs. Balchin's case was the worst that I had ever seen, I was more than happy to refer it to the ombudsman in January 1994.

In December 1994, I received the report on the case, in which--while accepting all the facts set out by Mr. and Mrs. Balchin and all the harm they had suffered--the ombudsman failed to find maladministration on the part of the Department of Transport.

As a member of the Select Committee, I am well aware of how carefully Mr. Reid, the ombudsman, goes about these matters, so it was only after thinking the matter through most carefully and consulting widely that I asked him to reconsider the matter, and had a meeting with him

---