House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Jun 1992

Column 955

considerable advantages that it would provide. Because he rejected the concerns about noise, dust and traffic, he did not think it necessary to consider whether there was an overwhelming need for the project. However, if he had not felt that there were good reasons for the consent to be applied, it could have been shown that there was a need which could not have been satisfied by locating the site anywhere else.

There are proposals to mitigate noise from the plant through the use of screening. That will provide suitable protection against plant noise and the process of loading and unloading material. The arrival and departure of trains will not significantly raise the level of noise of that busy railway route. The east coast main line carries a great deal of traffic. When channel tunnel traffic begins to use the line, the traffic will increase.

It is important to BR's future viability and success that there should be an increase in use of its lines, and I hope that all hon. Members would support that. Set against the use of that very busy line--one of the country's premier lines--it is not felt that the arrival and departure of trains in connection with the plant will significantly raise the level of noise, especially bearing in mind the agreements and conditions applied by the inspector with regard to night-time working.

Concerns were also expressed about the effects of dust. I noted that a number of those who gave evidence at the public inquiry had been to King's Cross and had expressed concern about the dust there. Monitoring has shown that there is not a great deal of dust at King's Cross. However, the plant at King's Cross was constructed many years ago and considerable progress has been made in applying dust suppression techniques.

Furthermore, the aggregates used in the batching process are damp and not inherently dusty. Proposals are included for the site for the damping down of the aggregates in the handling area. It is believed that dust levels will prove to be negligible. Monitoring of dust levels at King's Cross, where the levels have inherently been much greater than is anticipated at Lough road, show that there is absolutely no threat to health as interpreted by international health organisations.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate development at King's Cross. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, King's Cross is a major terminus which will hopefully be a through station at the end of the premier east coast main line. In order to gain support for the Bill, perhaps he can explain something to me. In its very expensive document entitled "On Track for Europe", BR states that it is ordering daytime trains and that those trains

"will provide daily services from Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham to Paris and to Brussels. Other stops are planned at Stockport, Crewe, Stafford, Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes and at Newcastle, Darlington, York, Doncaster and Peterborough." The whole purpose of the King's Cross development has been to garner support from the provinces on the basis that trains will stop at major cities. With regard to the list to which I have referred, why will no trains originate from or stop at Leeds or Bradford?

Mr. Waller : I must be cautious about pursuing too far the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), because that is not the subject of the Bill. However, the prospect of channel tunnel trains going to

Column 956

Leeds is by no means ruled out, although I think that that would depend on the electrification of the link between Leeds and York which would enable trains on the east coast main line bound for Newcastle and Edinburgh to divert via Leeds. That might be considered and, for constituency reasons, I hope that it is implemented when the opportunity arises.

The second main proposal in the Bill is to improve access to the main works sites.

Mr. Corbyn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller : I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It was one of the criticisms of the local authorities that the quality of access to the site was not ideal. The No. 2 Bill benefits from more detailed construction planning, and it proposes a remedy by providing three new temporary access points and by making one of the original access points permanent rather than temporary to meet the express requirements of the railways inspectorate for vehicular access in the event of emergencies. That should help to reduce even further use of the public highway and any possible congestion. It should allow swifter movement of vehicles to and from the site. More of the construction traffic associated with the project will now be able to use major rather than residential roads, which will be particularly beneficial to residents of Wharfdale road, Balfe street and Railway street, three streets that figured prominently in our debate on the principal Bill.

Mr. Corbyn : I am not trying to throw the hon. Gentleman off his stride, but he seems to have ignored the implications of clause 9, which fits in with the question of the concrete batching plant at Lough road. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the modifications proposed for the Hornsey road bridge fall within my constituency, as the boundary runs along the Holloway road, the northern side of which is in my constituency. Can the hon. Gentleman say how extensive will be those works to the Hornsey road bridge, and is he aware that the bridge was changed not so recently to make it narrower?

Mr. Waller : I am very much aware of the latter point. If BR had anticipated the present proposals, it would not have made that change. Nevertheless, it is necessary to build a new bridge alongside the existing one to enable the project to go ahead. I cannot at this stage answer the hon. Gentleman's point in full. However, if I can make progress quickly and finish my speech, there will be time for me to answer important points like that later in the debate, if I have the leave of the House to respond.

It is perhaps difficult for a Bill such as this to capture the imagination of the House. I hope, however, that it will be seen as an important adjunct to the original proposals.

The House should take the opportunity to allow Marcon and Pioneer Willment to remain in the business of providing high-quality concrete to central London, but, above all, we should allow them to continue to bring in their aggregates by rail. The hon. Member for Bradford, South is very keen for that to be facilitated, not only at King's Cross but in many parts of the country, and I applaud his intent. It is certainly the policy of the Government and of the Opposition to develop opportunities for freight by rail,

Column 957

and it commands the highest support in the House. This Bill must succeed if there is to be any credibility in that policy. The proposals for access to the main King's Cross site are in response to the feeling that access could be improved. I hope that the measures in the No. 2 Bill will be seen as a measure of the promoter's willingness to respond to the concerns of local authorities and others.

I recognise hon. Members' important constituency concerns. However, there is a need for a concrete batching site. The public inquiry concluded that that was an appropriate site and that the concerns expressed by the objectors, although not totally insignificant by any means, were not such that the project should not go ahead. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

7.41 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I oppose the Bill, and I do so most vigorously. It is a misleadingly titled Bill, because I suspect that British Rail quite deliberately wanted to imply that there was a direct connection between the works connected with this Bill and the new channel tunnel station at King's Cross, which was approved by the passage of the original King's Cross Railways Bill. The promulgation of this No. 2 Bill by British Rail has compounded that misleading impression. It has argued that the Bill is somehow an integral part of the placing at King's Cross of the channel tunnel traffic. It has sold the virtues of the No. 2 Bill on the back of that assumption. That assumption is totally incorrect.

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) tended to go a little bit in the same direction when he talked about the Bill being an adjunct to the original King's Cross Railways Bill. It is nothing of the sort. If the Bill were to fall and not be given a Second Reading, that would make virtually not one jot of difference to the proposals for the channel tunnel station at King's Cross.

The location of the channel tunnel traffic at King's Cross and its onward progress to the north-east and north-west is of great importance to many of my hon. Friends and indeed of particular importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who has argued long and valiantly in a previous capacity for such direct links to the north. None of that--the location at King's Cross or the links to the north--would be affected at all if the Bill were defeated today.

I hope that British Rail will not try to argue that anything else is the case, because 95 per cent. of the Bill is about the specific location of a concrete batching plant on a specific site in the middle of my constituency --nothing more, nothing less. To imply that it is anything more is actually to mislead the House and the public as well.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that, if British Rail made assertions about the Bill, it would be unlikely to be believed because it suborned many provincial Members into supporting the original Bill on the claim--

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : But not you.

Mr. Cryer : But not me. My hon. Friend is quite right. It suborned many hon. Members on the promise that there would be daily through trains, or at least through trains

Column 958

from various major provincial cities. According to the publication that it recently released, that is patently not the case.

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He will recall that, in the Committee report on the King's Cross Railways Bill, British Rail was taken strenuously to task for the way in which it argued its case. I suspect that it is up to precisely the same tricks this time.

The statement that was issued by the propagators of the Bill in connection with the Second Reading states :

"This Bill will confer on the Board additional powers to those being sought in the King's Cross Railways Bill".

They clearly give the impression in that supporting statement that there is a direct connection between the No. 2 Bill and the main King's Cross Railways Bill. There is not. Again, they give the same impression in the environmental summary which is in the Vote Office. They say :

"The King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill contains two railway works proposals which are closely connected with the major improvements planned for King's Cross".

The works proposals are not closely connected with those major improvements. There are only two connections of any kind whatsoever. The first is the proposal in the No. 2 Bill for four new--three of them are temporary--access points to the main King's Cross works. Those are minor matters, but they are none the less contestable, and I shall refer to them in a moment, but they are not germane to the entirety of the King's Cross project. Indeed, if British Rail had wanted to, it could have introduced those new access points in amendments to the existing King's Cross Railways Bill.

The only other connection between the two schemes is the theme that ran through the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley, and that is the assumption that, because a concrete batching plant on the King's Cross Railway lands is going to be displaced--eventually--by developments at King's Cross, another site has to be identified for it. Of course, it does not have to be at Lough road. Those are the only two connections between the two Bills. For British Rail to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Mr. Snape : I might be as disingenuous as British Rail, although I hope not. If the plant is to be removed from its present site in King's Cross goods yard to the site proposed in the Bill, surely that establishes the very connection that my hon. Friend seeks to deny.

Mr. Smith : The last thing that I would accuse my hon. Friend of being is disingenuous. He has a formidable reputation for plain and honest speaking, but I fear that on that specific point he is wrong. The Bill provides for the railway works in connection with a specific location for the concrete batching plant. There is a multitude of other possible locations. If one moves a concrete batching plant, one does not have to put it on Lough road. As I shall mention later, there is provision, for example, for a new temporary concrete batching plant on the King's Cross railway lands while construction continues on the new station. There is no reason whatever why that plant should not stay on the King's Cross railway lands. Perhaps a few square feet of office development might have to be removed from the London regenertion consortium scheme. But it would be perfectly possible to put the plant elsewhere.

Column 959

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is right to say that the removal of the concrete batching plant from King's Cross is an inevitable consequence of the original King's Cross Railways Bill, but the placing of that concrete batching plant on the Lough road site is by no means an inevitable consequence. That is the point at issue.

There are four new access points to the main King's Cross site. Three of them will be temporary. One is on the east corner of Caledonian road and Pentonville road. The second is on the west corner of Northdown street and Pentonville road. The first of those access points seems somewhat dangerous. I am sure that after a close inspection of the maps which have been tabled you would come to the same conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Similarly, the second site lies outside the planned lorry routes for the King's Cross construction traffic. One has to assume, therefore, that the lorry routes will be changed to make use of that new access point. The second access point could also be dangerous, although perhaps less obviously so than the first.

The third new access point is on the south corner of Railway street and York way. That proposal is supposed to move an original access point midway along Railway street, and therefore much nearer to the residential houses in Balfe street, to the new south corner. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall from our discussions about the original King's Cross Railways Bill that the hon. Member for Keighley, who sponsored that Bill also, specifically refused to remove from the Bill the provision for the original access point halfway along Railway street. Now, we are told that a third new access point will be created, but that the original access point will not be removed. Therefore, far from allaying the fears of residents and the local authority, as the hon. Member for Keighley implied, British Rail is creating extra access points without removing any of the access points provided under the original Bill.

The new access point at the corner of Railway street and York way would require the complete demolition of the St. Pancras ironworks, a building which is considered to be the most significant unlisted building in the immediate area. There is an alternative : if British Rail did its homework properly--I am afraid that a long catalogue of instances in connection with the King's Cross project demonstrates that British Rail does not--it could have created a different access point a little further south on York way itself. That would have been much more acceptable to local people and equally good for British Rail. It would not have involved the demolition of any remarkable buildings.

The three new access points, all of which are in my constituency, do not add anything to the original Bill. Indeed, they make life worse rather than better for local people. The three access points which I mentioned are designed to be temporary. A fourth access point, provided for in the No. 2 Bill, will be permanent. It is on King's Cross road near Britannia street. It is supposed to provide emergency access to the station.

The new permanent access point is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who had hoped to be here with us this evening but has been unavoidably detained elsewhere. Of course there is a need for an emergency service access to the King's Cross site. However, I remain to be convinced that the position at Britannia street and King's

Column 960

Cross road is the right one for that emergency access. Of course, it enlarges the area of land which will be gobbled up by British Rail in both Camden and Islington for the purposes of its new channel tunnel station project.

The new access provisions seem to be the only parts of the Bill which have a direct impact on the main King's Cross project. British Rail has not come up with good proposals for new access points. It has come up with detrimental proposals and it could have done better.

I note from the environmental statement tabled with the Bill that British Rail says that the provisions of the environment code of the King's Cross Railways Bill will apply to the construction of the new access points. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a lengthy debate about the provisions of that environmental code when we discussed the main Bill. It was obvious from those discussions that the environmental code had not yet been agreed by the boroughs concerned. It still has not been agreed. It is inadequate. Blandly to say in the environmental impact statement that an environmental code will be in place to protect the interests of residents does not say much to the residents who will be affected.

Indeed, one must raise a fairly serious question about the validity of the entire environmental statement that British Rail has tabled in connection with the Bill. For example, under the heading "Cultural Heritage", it says :

"The planning of the King's Cross Railways Bill works has taken account of the character of the surrounding area, in particular the location and characteristics of Conservation Areas, listed buildings and other buildings of importance and interest."

The planning has done nothing of the sort. I invite British Rail to tell that to the owners and proprietors of the Great Northern hotel, which will be knocked down under British Rail's proposals. To say that the planning has taken account of the character of the surrounding area is wholly invalid. An environmental assessment report which comes out with obviously bogus sentences of that nature cannot be taken as a properly serious document.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : The hon. Gentleman mentioned the conservation area and the Great Northern hotel. In the context of that argument, he should also have mentioned the Golden Lion public house, which is also in the conservation area and is likely to be demolished. Surely that is another sign of the fact that British Rail has not considered the conservation aspects of its proposals. Many people tend to think of the Great Northern hotel as the obvious watering hole for people in the area, but the Golden Lion pub is also well known and has a certain tradition and character.

Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I hope that he will be able to catch your eye later in our deliberations, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that he will tell us a little about the importance of the Golden Lion.

Mr. Waller : Perhaps I could abbreviate the expected comments about that pub. Contrary to what was said, British Rail has demonstrated its concern and is in discussions with the London borough of Camden, in whose area the unlisted public house is located. It may or may not be demolished as part of the work, but it is not true to say that British Rail has not been concerned about its future.

Mr. Smith : That is a classic instance of the way in which British Rail has acted in connection with the project--it

Column 961

makes a proposal--in this case, for the demolition of a public house--begins to retreat from that position in the face of the fierce and logical opposition from all quarters and finally comes up with a half-baked solution.

That is what British Rail did about the access points which I mentioned, which are a minor part of the No. 2 Bill, representing at most 5 per cent. of its contents. I shall concentrate my remarks on the other 95 per cent., which concerns the concrete batching plant at the Lough road site and the railway works which will reach it. We cannot consider the railway works without considering the plant, as there will be no plant without railway access.

I shall place before my colleagues a number of reasons why we should not grant approval for a plant. The first and perhaps most important is that there is fierce local opposition to it. Several public meetings have been held. They were packed and were unanimous in their condemnation of the proposal. A number of local residents sat through the entire public local inquiry held by the planning inspector at Islington town hall, lasting several weeks. Many local residents expressed their concern in evidence to the planning inspector and many submitted petitions against the Bill.

I shall demonstrate the strength of feeling among local people. A letter from Mr. Fitzgerald, the chairman of the governors of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart school--a primary school next door to the proposed site of the concrete batching plant--says :

"I am appalled at the idea of British Rail's proposal to build two Concrete Batching Plants at Piper Close within 200 yards of the school. I would like to put forward my objection to these plants being sited at Piper Close. To think that our children will have to live and learn in such an environment is unthinkable, impractical and a disgrace to the powers who thought of the idea in the first place. They say it will be dustproof? They mean as near as they can make it, not quite the same thing Must our children live and learn with windows permanently closed The traffic hazard will be much much worse than it is at the present time."

That is eloquent testimony to the concern felt about the school which is next door to the site in question.

The tenants association of Tealby, Soldene, Bramall and Geary houses on the Ringcross estate has written to say :

"We the tenants association do object on behalf of our tenants and ourselves to the planning application made by British Rail/Marcon and Willment to build one of two concrete batching plants on the site between Piper Close and the railway line".

The letter lists the association's objections and highlights "The inappropriateness of this particular type of industrial activity next to residential dwellings."

The Ringcross estate lies directly by the site in question and many of the tenants on the estate will be directly affected by the siting of the concrete plant there.

The tenants association of Shearling way, which is also nearby, writes :

"On behalf of the tenants of Shearling Way estate, we are objecting to the proposed concrete batching plant between Piper Close and the railway line A number of our tenants back directly onto the railway lines and are very annoyed at the prospect of these trains running when people are normally asleep."

I shall come to the question of night-time operations in a moment, because the situation is unclear and the hon. Member for Keighley did not touch on it. The tenants association stresses that

"this is very much a residential area".

Column 962

It is right to do so.

A local general practitioner, Dr. Herwitz, whose practice covers the area around the site, has also written. He said :

"I am writing to protest about the proposed plans to turn the Lough road site in London N7 into concrete batching plants. This will result in many hundreds of lorry journeys every day causing unacceptable levels of noise, dust and pollution.

A large number of journeys by HGVs in this dense residential area would result in serious hazards to pedestrians as well as to local traffic. There are numerous schools in the area and children would clearly be at increased risk. In addition, there are several day centres for the elderly and special accommodation for the disabled. These people in particular need to be able to get to their homes and facilities locally without being threatened by enormous concrete transporters. This is a residential area which includes some light industrial buildings. The industrial units mainly involve quiet processes and little in the way of continuous journeys to-and -fro by large vehicles. By and large, such light industrial factories and workshops work well together. However the proposed concrete batching plants will destroy the equilibrium of the area In addition, they will also result in noisy night-time deliveries to the site. I know of many shift workers, including NHS nurses, who live near to this site whose sleep will be seriously disturbed if the proposals are given the go ahead."

That is but a small sample of the comments of local people, in positions of some authority and knowledge, who have argued strongly against the siting of the concrete batching plant at that location. Two themes of objections are overwhelmingly obvious. First, the area is residential, people's homes directly overlook the site and are cheek by jowl with it and they will be dramatically affected by the erection of the concrete plant.

The second major theme of the residents is not just the impact of the workings on the site but all the consequent movements of traffic, especially because the concrete aggregate will enter by train and leave by lorry. There will be many lorry movements in and out of the new site throughout the day.

Mr. Corbyn : Is my hon. Friend aware--I am sure he is--that one issue concerning the concrete batching plant, which came up at the Monnery road inquiry, was the short interval between the loading of lorries and the deliveries of the ready-mixed concrete? As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) pointed out, that sometimes takes an hour. There is a lot of traffic in Islington, so does my hon. Friend think that residential roads will be used increasingly to deliver the concrete quickly?

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend may be right. I shall touch on that in a moment when I consider the traffic implications of the development, which are not quite what British Rail claims they are likely to be. British Rail is up to its usual tricks with the main King's Cross development. Originally, it argued that that development would cause negligible traffic consequences, but it was forced to admit that some would arise. In addition, the Department of Transport estimates of disruption are considerably greater than those of British Rail. British Rail is playing the same tricks in this issue. Mr. Michael Brown : The hon. Gentleman has referred to the noise on the site. It is important to note that that will not be caused by heavy goods vehicles alone. The concrete will arrive by train, so the hon. Gentleman should take account of page 27 of British Rail's environmental assessment, where it admits that the greatest potential for

Column 963

noise from trains will be between midnight and 3 o'clock in the morning. It also admits that diesel engines will idle and one can imagine the noise that they will make. The problem is not just that of noise from trains moving into and out of the site but that of diesel engines idling as unloading takes place. That will have a dramatic impact on noise levels for local residents during the most inconvenient hours of the day.

Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to what British Rail says in its environmental statement. We face something of a dilemma because in that report, British Rail suggested that there will be at least one night-time delivery of sand and aggregate to the batching plant. Of course, that will create noise. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to diesel engines idling, but they will also shunt backwards and forwards. Trucks will be pulled one by one as they pass through the unloading bays. The noise impact of those activities in the early hours of the morning on the people whose homes are directly next door will be considerable.

Mr. Snape : I do not pretend that the noise of trains is music to everyone's ears, but will my hon. Friend tell us whether the rest of Islington, particularly its major roads, is a haven of peace and tranquillity all night?

Mr. Smith : For once, I fear that my charitable inclinations towards my hon. Friend are departing. He falls into exactly the same trap as British Rail did in its environmental statements. It has argued that the people of Islington already have to put up with noise, so if it loads a massive amount of extra noise on them, it will not matter. My hon. Friend cannot expect the people of Islington to accept that argument, which would add extra noise on top of that from which they already suffer. I accept that they live in a congested inner-city area and that many of them live beside roads and railway lines. They accept the constraints that that imposes on their quality of life, but it would be too much to subject them to extra, intrusive noise, especially in the middle of the night.

Mr. Corbyn : Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1983 we tabled an early-day motion which called for a Londonwide lorry ban? We were not entirely successful, but we achieved a night-time lorry ban and changed the attitudes of many local authorities, particularly our own. They have done their best to curb the use of heavy vehicles at night and to reduce the noise pollution from them. It is therefore highly inappropriate that people should be expected to put up with increased noise at night, because of the concrete batching plant, when those people have enjoyed a slight improvement in their living conditions because of the operation of the night-time lorry ban on the Holloway road.

Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps he should have added that the former Greater London council played a creditable role in achieving a night-time lorry ban in London, which greatly benefited its residents.

We face a dilemma on night-time working. In its environmental statements, British Rail stated that there will be night-time deliveries of aggregate and sand and floodlighting of the site to enable the night-time work to carry on. The planning inspector in a recent report, to which British Rail does not refer in any of the documents that it has laid before the House, made recommendations

Column 964

that are germane to the debate. He recommended that planning permission should be granted only on condition that no night-time operations take place. We need to know from British Rail whether it intends to pursue the idea of night-time working or whether it will accept the condition proposed by the planning inspector. At present, everything that British Rail has proposed assumes that there will be night- time operations.

Mr. Michael Brown : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the environmental assessments of noise levels, because it is beyond dispute that BR assumes night-time working will take place. However, he has disappointed me, because he has confined his remarks to the noise caused by heavy goods vehicles and shunting. I remind him--I hope that he will devote part of his speech to this--that, to unload the trucks, a vibrating machine will be necessary to grab the sand and gravel out of them. On pages 27 and 28 of volume two of the technical reports, British Rail admits that the greatest potential for noise comes from the machinery that will grab the sand and gravel from the railway trucks. That will also add to the noise caused by the diesel engines.

Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my argument, because I had intended to consider the issues of noise, dust and the nature of the working. However, he is right to draw our attention to page 27. A footnote to that statement says :

"It is intended that deliveries of sand at night will be restricted, should it prove necessary."

Who determines whether it proves necessary? We need to know whether the planning inspector's restrictions on night-time operations will be accepted by British Rail. The papers which British Rail has tabled in the House show that it will not accept that restriction.

Mr. Waller : British Rail has accepted the condition applied by the planning inspector that there should be no night-time deliveries of aggregates to the site. It may have been thought that, compared with the large amount of traffic on the line, that was a relatively minor factor. Nevertheless, British Rail has accepted that, despite the fact that it causes some disadvantage. The limited number of deliveries at night would have been advantageous to British Rail, but it accepts the condition that the planning inspector has applied to his recommendation.

Mr. Smith : In that case, we are making some progress. We now have an acceptance by British Rail of the planning inspector's recommendation.

However, as the planning inspector pointed out, an inevitable consequence of reduced night-time activity on the site would be increased day-time activity. Therefore, although local residents are delighted that there will be no prospect of work until the small hours of the morning, the consequences of that must be taken into account.

The hon. Member for Keighly briefly mentioned the history of the site, and it may be appropriate if I deal for a moment or two with that subject. The site is interesting and has served many purposes in its lifetime. It was originally used for sidings, cattle pens and the premises of forage merchants. It was very much connected with its location directly beside the railway. It went through a long and tortuous history of different tenancies, uses and applications for planning permission.

It is worth noting that in 1962 British Rail declared the site to be surplus land and offered it to London county

Column 965

council as a possible site for housing. That seems to show that, 30 years ago, British Rail felt that the best use for that site was not the use that is now proposed but something quite different. It is worth noting also that proposals have been made on several occasions for the creation of a concrete batching plant on the Lough road site. In 1970, the London borough of Islington turned down an application, giving as grounds for doing so the disturbance and noise that would be created for the occupants of an estate that was then under construction, which subsequently became the Ringcross estate, directly beside the site on which the Bill focuses.

The latest position is that British Rail, in association with the two concrete companies, has submitted two different applications for concrete batching facilities on the site. The Department of the Environment inspector has considered the matter, there has been a lengthy public local inquiry and vigorous local opposition has been expressed to the proposal. The inspector's report was issued only a few weeks ago, with the important proviso of no night-time working. I regret to say that it does not accept the opposition of local residents and the borough but recommends approval of the concrete batching plant. However, it clearly says that harm will be done to the amenities of local residents.

The inspector then develops the remarkable argument that, because the site is destined in the local plan for general industrial use, it does not matter what kind of industrial use the land is put to because everyone will accept that there will be disturbance and noise. There is a world of difference between an industrial use that it is possible and sensible to locate next door to residential accommodation and industrial use that it is not sensible to locate next door to residential accommodation. A concrete batching plant falls firmly in the latter category. I fear that the planning inspector has not accepted what seems to be a common-sense argument put strongly by local people.

Everything now depends on the Bill. If it does not go ahead, the concrete batching plant will not go ahead. But if it proceeds and it receives approval from both Houses of Parliament, the concrete batching plant will go ahead and many of my constituents will be directly damaged and disadvantaged by that fact. That is why I cannot accept the proposal.

Mr. Michael Brown : Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is a fundamentally flawed way of going about matters to go first to the planning authority, then hold a public inquiry and, lastly, go to the Secretary of State? Is it not presumptuous to try to present a fait accompli to Parliament? If British Rail wanted to go ahead with the project, would it not have been more courteous to come first to Parliament with its proposals for legislation and, only after Parliament had determined whether the Bill should go ahead, hold a public inquiry? Was it not presumptuous of British Rail to say to the House, "Well, we have held a public inquiry and have the Secretary of State's permission, so will you kindly rubber-stamp it?"

Mr. Smith : Great as my respect is for the hon. Gentleman, I do not follow his argument entirely. I have long argued that the whole private Bill procedure is nonsense. It is no sensible way to make proper decisions

Column 966

about local planning matters, which is basically what the Bill is about, or strategic principle decisions, which is what the main King's Cross Bill is about.

Other matters also need to be taken into account. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Keighley said that there was no alternative site and that, as a result of the removal of the batching plant in the King's Cross development, the new batching plant had to be located in Lough road because there was nowhere else for it to go. He said that everybody else had had a look and had come to the conclusion that it must be located at Lough road. That is explicitly stated in the environmental statement issued by British Rail. But we are talking about a fairly substantial area. The way in which concrete is produced at a batching plant means that it can be transported from a large number of locations to central London. It does not have to come from the King's Cross or Holloway district but could come from any region within a suitable mileage of central London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned Monnery road public inquiry and the inspector's report. That involved another proposal for a concrete batching plant--in his constituency, not mine--which attracted similarly fierce opposition from local residents. I am pleased that, in that case, the inspector saw sense and decided that the proposal should not go ahead. The subject of alternative locations arose during that inquiry. The Secretary of State's inspector said that there was a potential site at Juno way in New Cross.

Page 42 of the inspector's report stated that the potential site at Juno way

"would be able to serve areas to the south of the Thames now operated from King's Cross."

It also stated :

"I do not accept that the River Thames acts for practical purposes as a complete barrier to lorry movement."

It is clear from the inspector's report on Monnery road that the new site proposed at Juno way in New Cross could serve exactly the purpose proposed for the site at King's Cross. Since then, permission has been granted to develop the Juno way site as a concrete batching plant, so an alternative site does exist ; for anyone, including British Rail, to pretend that it does not is not a valid argument. New Cross is not the only alternative site and the question must be asked whether British Rail has looked closely enough at the land it owns at King's Cross. The proposals for the new international station at King's Cross touch on only a small proportion of British Rail's lands at King's Cross. There are proposals for a massive development of the remainder of those railway lands by the London regeneration consortium. I am by no means convinced that it is impossible to find a corner of the King's Cross railway lands that could be used for the relocation of the present concrete batching plant.

At a briefing meeting held in April 1991 on its King's Cross development proposals, British Rail said that it intended to build two concrete plants in the north-west corner of the King's Cross railway lands site for the period of redevelopment and construction of those lands. If it can build two concrete plants on its own King's Cross land for the duration of the King's Cross development, why on earth can it not have two concrete plants to last beyond the time of its redevelopment of the King's Cross railway lands at that location?

Next Section

Home Page