| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.
Whitley Park, Huddersfield
1.30 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I welcome you to your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first speech that I have made in the new Parliament and therefore it is the first opportunity for me to congratulate you and wish you well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and wish her well. She is certainly earning her money, because this is the second debate to which she has had to reply today.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise concerns about recent events at Whitley park. What has happened there shows the need urgently and significantly to strengthen existing environmental protection measures.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the Wakefield constituency was radically changed at the general election and now includes the two Kirklees wards of Kirkburton and Denby Dale, which were previously within the Dewsbury constituency. Whitley park is situated within the Kirkburton ward, between Huddersfield and Wakefield, to the west of the village of Grange Moor and to the north east of the village of Lepton. It is an area of privately owned land that contains woodland, copses and open fields. During my teens, I had a friend who lived on a farm in Grange Moor and we regularly roamed around the Whitley park area. I therefore share the very high regard of local people for its value as an outstanding local beauty spot. I also share the concern about the recent destruction of several copses within the park and understand the anger and outrage that have united local people in the Lepton and Grange Moor areas.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the land concerned is owned by a company called Elliotts Bricks Ltd. It is based in Lepton and is involved in the production of facing and engineering bricks. I understand that, over recent years, it has bought a considerable amount of the local green belt with the longer-term intention of mining clay through opencast methods.
In the short time that I have represented the Lepton area, I have received an almost constant stream of complaints about the company's activities, most recently concerning the burning of wool sludge. I gather that these representations are nothing out of the ordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has constituents in nearby Kirkheaton who have raised concerns about the company. My hon. Friend was quoted in the Huddersfield Examiner on 3 April as saying:
After the first copse had been partially cleared of vegetation, the driver was persuaded to stop to allow an investigation of the claim that there were active badger setts in the area being cleared. I understand that an agreement was reached for the local residents and the company separately to consult two different badger experts prior to any resumption of clearance work. In addition to myself, the head of planning services for Kirklees council, Mr. Keith Faragher, paid an urgent visit to the site to consider any steps that the local authority might be able to take. I pay tribute to his willingness to turn out over a bank holiday weekend. The fact that he found himself effectively powerless to prevent the destruction is a key issue, to which I shall come later.
After the work was halted, local residents were given to understand that they would meet representatives of Elliotts the following day to discuss evidence of badger activity, but the company cancelled the meeting on the ground that its experts had not had the opportunity to visit the site. Residents were then advised that bulldozing would be resumed on the Thursday afternoon of that week. The local residents attempted to stand in front of the bulldozers and to open their doors, but it was to no avail--within three hours, three circular copses, well-loved features of the Whitley park estate for at least 100 years, had been destroyed. The company set the freshly dug peat mounds on fire, with burning hay bales tossed on to the remaining vegetation.
Although I understand that there is no positive proof of active badger setts in the immediate vicinity, the copses involved--primarily populated by rhododendrons--provided cover for a variety of birds and other wildlife. The indiscriminate destruction both removed that habitat and killed some of its resident wildlife, in particular rabbits.
I realise that there are rules about using photographs in debates, but I want to pass to my hon. Friend the Minister some photographs showing before-and-after scenes of the site. They illustrate, in a far more realistic way than I can, what really happened. I hope that she will look at those photographs in detail.
The owners of the land eventually made a statement to the local press suggesting that their actions formed part of a "comprehensive whole farm plan" based on advice that the rhododendrons should be cleared. I am aware that such plants sometimes require control, in particular where there are grazing animals, but there can be no justification for the indiscriminate destruction at Whitley park over the Easter period. I look to the new Government to ensure that such irresponsible actions by landowners are not permitted in law in future.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend's Department has announced a review of existing hedgerow protection, especially as I understand that the new hedgerow regulations of 1 June have made no difference to existing powers to restrain such actions. Will the Minister look at the weakness of existing legislation as evidenced in this case? I would welcome her comments on the apparent inconsistencies in whether vegetation within a copse where trees are subject to a tree preservation order is protected in law.
In a ruling some years ago, Lord Denning determined that the site of a wood--undergrowth, seedlings, plants, and so on--is protected, not just individual trees. The local authority, however, has advised me that, although the trees within the copses concerned have been protected by a tree preservation order since 1950, because they are defined as group G2 containing beech and sycamore, reference to the definition of a tree in woodland as per Lord Denning's decision is not relevant. It also said that the plant material destroyed was not trees but mainly rhododendrons, which clearly has a bearing on any approach that might be taken to protect such copses.
I recognise that, despite their attractiveness, especially at this time of year, rhododendrons are regarded by some as an invasive weed. I understand the need to exercise control, particularly if their growth suppresses natural tree regeneration, but such control should be exercised by on-going and sensitive removal of the vegetation concerned, not by what the local parish council chairman described as "environmental vandalism". Even if the case for removing such vegetation is accepted, there must be controls to prevent the indiscriminate bulldozing witnessed at Whitley park, and those controls appear to be lacking.
I should also welcome the Minister's thoughts on the relevance of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to what has happened at Whitley park. That legislation makes it an offence intentionally to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built. Given that the destruction took place in early April, when it was presumably known that birds were likely to be nesting within the sites in question--I have pictures that show that nests were destroyed--is the Minister satisfied that the Act has sufficient powers to protect wildlife in such circumstances and that the enforcement of those powers is sufficiently understood by those responsible?
The police were involved at Whitley park. They were called by Elliotts to ensure public safety and public order, but I strongly suspect that the officers concerned were not aware of their possible role in enforcing the 1981 legislation in such cases.
"Elliotts have a long history of activities which local people have objected to very strongly."
As my hon. Friend will recall, two years ago local communities took great exception to Elliotts stripping natural vegetation on four acres of land that it owned at Lepton common. I understand that, in doing so, it had destroyed some active badger setts. I want briefly to quote press coverage at the time. On 2 June 1995, the Huddersfield District Chronicle reported that a wildlife haven had been destroyed and said:
"Bulldozers have torn through a wildlife oasis that has been on maps for more than 1,000 years.
11 Jun 1997 : Column 1117
Outraged villagers watched helplessly as bulldozers ploughed into Lepton Common . . . on Sunday morning. Vegetation left in their wake was torched.
On Saturday 10 June, the Huddersfield Examiner talked about
Four-acres of gorse bushes--home to badgers, a vixen and four cubs, rabbits and numerous birds--was destroyed."
"The rape of Lepton Common".
The most recent damage caused by Elliotts occurred at Whitley park over the Easter period, against a background of strenuous protests by concerned local residents. I want to pay particular tribute to those involved for drawing attention to what was happening and for their vigorous attempts to stop it. In particular, I want to mention the efforts of a local parish councillor, Roy Dobson, whose vigilance led to the company's intentions being anticipated early on the morning of Easter Tuesday, 1 April. Mr. Dobson, who lives nearby, spotted a bulldozer in the park and alerted local residents, who arrived on the scene as the driver started ripping up one of the copses within the park. Mr. Dobson was supported by other local residents, including Mr. Robert Gunn, Mr. Mike Greethan and local Kirklees councillors, Peter Sykes, Eileen Blunt and Mel Munday--representing, incidentally, all three main political parties on the local authority.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |