House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Mar 1990

Column 504

occasionally by developers but as an automatic part of the planning process. Developers know that the local committee of elected councillors will wish, respectably and legitimately, to look after the interests of local residents and electors. To say that that is illegitimate is absurd. Planning applications are often turned down for those reasons. That will not happen under this procedure, whereby the attractions of first stage approval would reverberate right through the process. It would reduce the incidence of unnecessary appeals.

Developers now automatically put in a new plan and appeal before the current appeal--which is automatically applied for--is done away with. They can easily carry the expenses of appeals whereas the local community cannot, because the expenses are usually borne by the local authority.

Mr. Ground : I have followed my hon. Friend's arguments closely as I did those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). One of the principal fears about the Bill is that a site may be left derelict and unattractive and become a source of vandalism and trespass for a long period. Will my hon. Friend explain how, simply by passing this measure, we do anything to prevent a site from being left vacant and in that condition?

Mr. Dykes : More resources, both human and financial, must be put into planning matters. The Government's planning Bill next autumn will presumably deal with those matters. I know that the process has become unfair and too slow for legitimate applications by legitimate developers, whether individuals, property companies or local authorities applying for a development in another local authority area. The requirement for sites to be properly looked after and husbanded between demolition and redevelopment is already manifest and is made even more so by the proposals. Because a developer will have to obtain permission for demolition, a greater moral and legal responsibility will be placed on the person obtaining permission for demolition in the first stage to proceed with haste to the second stage. Discretion is given to split the process or to deal with it in one package.

I now come to my last two points. I hope that I have not taken up too much time. Others may suggest that there is a recession in property now and that the pressure has gone. They suggest that the boom was merely a temporary manifestation, particularly in the sophisticated, expensive outer-London suburbs, in the south and elsewhere and it did not affect the north. I reject that completely. Even if that were half true at the margin, surely the physical fact of the recession provides an opportunity for us to make this important legislative adjustment. That would be better than waiting for the next boom when it will be too late, whenever that boom may come. When the boom will come is also a matter for fascinating conjecture. Presumably it is mixed up with the equally fascinating argument of when the next general election will be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, the Bill needs to go into Committee. That will be the opportunity for the Minister of State with his legitimate anxieties to come along with his colleagues and his intelligent and highly educated officials and put forward complicated procedural points about administration. That

Column 505

will be the time for him, as a responsible Minister must do on these occasions, to listen and cater for the anxieties of both Conservative and Opposition Members.

The classic reaction of Governments of all parties has been to regard private Members' Bills as a tedious matter. This is a chance for the Government to show that they are green, imaginative and humane. That is important for the Government. They will also have the chance to show that they respect the will of Parliament.

10.24 am

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I am grateful for the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his good fortune in the ballot and on introducing this interesting, important and timely measure. My hon. Friend and I have the pleasure of representing neighbouring constituencies. Therefore, we share a common interest in the preservation of the environment in the borough of Hillingdon.

The Bill is timely because it deals with a problem which is becoming steadily more evident and which urgently needs to be addressed. The Bill is useful. It complements the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974, which I had the good fortune to promote as a private Member and which was also supported by the Labour party. I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that the Labour party supports my hon. Friend's Bill, too.

The Bill deals with the problem of infilling. It also deals with the nasty problem of the gaps which are beginning to appear in streets and crescents throughout urban areas in Greater London, Middlesex and other parts of the country. My attention was drawn to the problem only a month or two ago by a case which arose in my constituency of Uxbridge. It involved a planning application to demolish a house and garage and to erect a two-story building containing five studio flats, several two-bedroomed flats and associated car parking.

The proposed development was strongly resisted by my constituents in Cowley near Uxbridge. They wrote to me drawing my attention to the fact that it was a desirable house which formed part of the character of the area and that they did not wish to see it replaced by a block of flats. When the application went to the planning committee of the borough of Hillingdon, it was refused.

The director of planning for Hillingdon wrote to me :

"The proposal would represent unacceptable over-development of the site which would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the area."

I stress those words because they are important in this case. The would-be developer, a major national insurance company, applied for permission to demolish and to construct a block of flats in place of a much-loved local house. However, there was no reason why that developer had to apply for planning permission.

The director of planning went on to say :

"There was a significant level of objection to the demolition of this house and garage. However, the property is not a listed building nor is it in a conservation area and does not therefore need planning permission for demolition. While it is considered to be an attractive property, it is unlikely that the Department of Environment would agree to list a house of this age and interest."

That raises another important point. In our country are many pleasant houses which are attractive and form part of the neighbourhood. They cannot be listed because many were built in the 1920s, the 1930s, or the 1950s. They are

Column 506

the normal, ordinary kind of houses in which, probably, most hon. Members live. Today, because of the pressure for development in suburban areas, there is a tremendous temptation for some developers--not all by any means--to demolish a property and then to apply for planning permission to construct in place of a single dwelling-house a small block of flats to house five to 10 people.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : Does my hon. Friend agree that his concern is already covered by section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971? Under that section, if it appears that a building of special architectural or historic interest is in danger of demolition or alteration, the local planning authority may serve a building preservation notice.

Mr. Shersby : My anxiety is not covered, because the building concerned may not be of special historic or architectural interest--it may simply be an attractive property, which forms part of the urban landscape. When I introduced the Town and Country Amenities Bill in 1974, it had all- party support and it dealt with enhancing conservation areas. During our discussions on it we argued that it is the familiar townscape that for the particular character of our environment and which are at risk when demolition takes place without planning permission.

We are not dealing necessarily with houses of special architectural or historic interest ; we are dealing with the ordinary dwelling house, which forms part of a street, crescent or square, whose removal damages the quality of those areas.

Mr. Dykes : It is interesting to reflect that the planning departments of many local authorities are greatly in favour of the proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Shersby : My hon. Friend is right.

There is a gap in the armoury of planning controls, but there has been no attempt to fill it ; it has been left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood to remedy the situation.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is that of back-land development in urban areas. The houses in Ruislip-Northwood, and in Uxbridge, as well as in adjoining constituencies, are either detached or semi-detached and have long gardens of about 240 or 250 feet. They were built in the 1920s or 1930s ; I was born and grew up in such a house. Today there is a temptation for some developers to gain access to the attractive back land by acquiring and demolishing those houses, which then enables them to drive a road through and to develop another row of houses on that land.

For many years, decent developers have applied for planning permission to demolish a property, but there is no obligation on them to do so. Consequently, it is open to the cowboy developer to acquire a property, demolish it and then to apply for planning permission for access to the back land. When a local authority planning department is faced with that problem, it is difficult for it to refuse permission, as the house that would have prevented access has already been demolished. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has drawn attention to that problem, and I strongly endorse what he said. It is something to which the Government should address themselves.

My hon. Friend the Minister represents a pleasant constituency in Worcestershire. I am sure that he is

Column 507

familiar with the urban areas of that county as well as with those of greater London and those of other great towns and cities. The threat to the character of the environment lies principally in those areas, because there are some unprincipled developers who will use any tactic to gain access to development land. It is well known that many developers survey an area by helicopter to pick out the patches of green land. They then knock on the doors of my constituents and urge them to sell so that they can gain access. It only takes one or two people to sell for demolition to take place and access to be granted. Once that happens, however, the character of an area is changed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) mentioned houses of special architectural or historic interest, but we are talking about the houses of suburban England and that is why I support the Bill. It is well for the House to remember that, from the 1920s to the 1950s, or even later, many excellent developments were built in and around London, Birmingham, Manchester and many of our other great cities. Those developments are the heritage which people regard as extremely important today. They form the familiar townscape that people want to retain. My constituents, and I am sure those of many of my hon. Friends, do not want to live in a street where the line of the carefully planned development of the 1920s or 1930s is interrupted by a sudden gap--just like a gap in a row of teeth--which is then refilled with a nasty block, an amalgam, of small flats offered to first-time buyers at a large price.

We are dealing not simply with planning control, but with the character of the environment, which our constituents hold dear. I hope that the Government will take careful account of that when deciding how to respond to the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raised an important point about houses of special architectural or historic interest. One of my relatives lives in a beautiful old lath and plaster house, which is 250 years old. I spoke to him on the telephone last night and he confirmed that his house is not listed. Therefore, it could be demolished unless the planning control to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew attention was invoked. According to my relative and to others to whom I have spoken, it is not unknown, unfortunately, for old houses to collapse during refurbishment. When that happens, no planning control exercised by the local authority can possibly restore that house.

One house, which was not listed, but was certainly 250 years old, was in the process of restoration when it collapsed during the night. When the local authority officials went to look at it, they found new window frames, new bricks and other materials in the garden all ready for the construction of the new house intended to replace the old property. Strange things can happen to old buildings during the night, and the best planning controls in the world cannot prevent the determined cowboy developer who wants to get hold of a particular site.

I commend the Bill to the House. If there is a Division, I hope that it receives a substantial majority. It will then go into the Committee and we shall have the opportunity to

Column 508

consider in detail some of the planning considerations that will undoubtedly be raised by other colleagues this morning.

10.38 am

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : It is not only a pleasure but an honour to support my hon. Friend the Member for

Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in the excellent Bill he has introduced. I am not only one of the named sponsors to the Bill, but was a sponsor of two previous Bills introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).

The Bill is one of the most sensible small measures to be presented to the House in a long time. The more I have studied the issue, the more surprised I am that it has not already been a part of planning legislation. I have read copious amounts on the background information to this Bill, including the Dobry report, which was published in February 1975. It contains virtually no mention of demolition. It was the shorter report, published the year before, which contained some evidence that demolition was a serious problem that should be covered by planning legislation.

In paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for

Ruislip-Northwood, I should say that, when I was first elected to the constituency of Richmond and Barnes, he was then a resident there, and I was a resident in his constituency of Ruislip-Northwood. I can well remember the joy with which we greeted each other, having given each other a vote in 1983. My hon. Friend still carries the badge that says, "I was one of the 74"--my majority was only 74 in those days. In 1987, we had both moved and he now votes for himself and I vote for myself, but that does not give me a pleasure as great as that when I voted for him. Therefore, I shall vote for him today, should the need arise.

As my hon. Friend knows Richmond so well, he knows the problem as it affects my constituency and he knows that demolition is a scourge and an act of vandalism. It occurs more often than perhaps the Minister would care to say. Avenues have been constructed in this century, such as Kew road, which borders Kew gardens and Castelnau in Barnes which are long, tree- lined avenues that make an attractive town landscape. In Richmond we are lucky : we call it the place where the countryside comes to town. The tree- lined avenues make living in a built-up urban area bearable.

What is so sad is that the harmonious development that created those roads is not just disturbed but ruined by demolition. In my constituency, notable houses in Kew road and Castelnau and many other streets have disappeared almost overnight. Recently, one house in Castelnau was demolished over a weekend. Those are not necessarily conservation areas. I have it on good authority from the planning department at my local council of Richmond-upon -Thames, that many councils create conservation areas specifically to protect buildings from being demolished, when in fact they may not want to create full-blown conservation areas. Councils are doing so when they should not, specifically to protect local residents' houses from impending demolition.

My hon. Friend the Minister said that he required evidence that demolition was causing trouble, but I find that statement strange. One of the major arguments against the Bill is that it would cause massive bureaucracy.

Column 509

If there is a lot of evidence of demolition, perhaps one would agree that bureaucracy might be created. However, there are not as many examples as might cause a large bureaucracy, but there are sufficient numbers to give rise to grave concern, particularly on the outskirts of London. If I am misinterpreting my hon. Friend's words, no doubt he will take me up later.

I do not believe that we will, as has been said, almost double the number of planning consents that will be required. That is like saying that the number of marriages will be doubled if the bride and groom are counted separately. It does not make sense, because there is no demolition unless there is construction. There should be no reason why a demolition should be allowed if a construction was not following hard on its heels, otherwise, we would have exactly the problems we have heard about, of sites becoming tips.

When I looked at the evidence showing that demolition should be part of planning controls, I found that the argument about whether demolition should constitute development was a fascinating one. It has already been said that there is some legal uncertainty about the matter, and local authorities have typically assumed that demolition is outside the ambit of development control. However, there are extensive powers within planning legislation to prevent the demolition of buildings of historic or architectural quality. I have already mentioned conservation areas, and the Town and Country Amenities Act 1974 brought the demolition of buildings in conservation areas under control. Therefore, some demolition features in planning control, and it is surprising that the subject is not more comprehensively dealt with in current practice.

Mr. Shersby : My hon. Friend referred to the Act that I promoted in 1974. Is he aware that in that Act I made specific provision so that a local authority could not give itself permission for the demolition of a listed building? That permission could be given only by the Secretary of State so that the right of the local authority to act as judge and jury in its own area was abolished. In promoting that change, I received support from both sides of the House. That was an important move, and it is relevant to the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Hanley : I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, I ask his forgiveness for not granting him the parenthood of that Act, which has stood the test of time.

My hon. Friend will no doubt remember that one of the reasons for the Dobry report was parliamentary pressure. There was amazing parliamentary pressure in the early 1970s, which was why George Dobry QC, was asked to produce the report, which has also stood the test of time. He concluded that there were several "persuasive" arguments--I use his word--in favour of subjecting demolition to control. He said that, first,

"there is a good deal of concern that the planning system should permit town centre and residential development that is sometimes strikingly out of scale or sympathy with the area affected." That is the point that I was making about the tree-lined avenues--that which replaces what has gone can often be out of sympathy and out of scale, and certainly ruin the amenity value of properties for other local residents.

Dobry continued by saying that, secondly, there was "genuine uncertainty" as to the law, which was bad for all of us. He also said, thirdly, that there was "inconsistency".

Column 510

Here, the argument, curiously, is that, although there are powers to control the demolition of certain buildings, there is no overall system. It is unsatisfactory to pick at certain points, rather than deal with the demolition in the round.

He said that, fourthly, and most importantly, there are the four practical reasons to extend control over demolition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned three of them. Dobry spoke of the aftermath of demolition and described graphically the inadequately fenced barren sites and the dumping grounds that we have all seen on those sites. The Dobry report mentioned the broken bottles, dumped cars and paraphernalia of vandalism and disorder--an excellent description. My hon. Friend also mentioned one of Dobry's conclusions, that demolition, as a fait accompli, cannot be allowed. Developers have a slightly dirty name ; perhaps that is sometimes deserved, but not all developers are professionals. A developer can be a person who has bought a house in, say Barnes or Kew, and has decided that he wants to pull down what was perhaps a desirable residence in the 1920s and make it into what is regarded as a modern desirable property. A developer can be an ordinary person who is possibly overstretched on his loans and suffering from high rates of interest. He wants to get the job done quickly, so that the loans are not outstanding for too long. He may very well want to sell and move on soon after he has built what he may claim to local residents is his dream house.

The developer may have put in four, five or six planning applications. They may have been turned down by the local council. Certainly many local councils turn down such applications ; people then appeal to the Secretary of State. Local councillors may not want to take the political risk of accepting a planning application, so they pass the buck to the Secretary of State and the independent inspectors appointed by him.

The developer whose five or six applications have been turned down may have been frustrated by a local council which, after all, is trying to act in the interests of local residents. But the developer knows full well that, once he has pulled down a property, the local council will be more likely to accept one of his plans, because it is better to have something in place than nothing. The fait accompli argument is a powerful one and it applies most frequently in my constituency--people pull down properties because then the council has to accept development, rather than refuse what might be regarded as reasonable or minor improvements or alterations to a property.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Does my hon. Friend accept that that result might be achieved in another way, even if this Bill were passed? A developer applies for planning permission to build a house on the basis of very low density, then demolishes the house on the site and fails to build the house that he has applied for planning permission to build.

Mr. Hanley : I do not claim that the Bill will make all demolition and planning legislation perfect. I agree that some people may fail to develop a site after demolition, but I also believe that the Government have a duty to deal with waste land, private or public. We know that the Government are taking great steps to reduce the area of derelict land under their control and to try to encourage local authorities to use derelict land that is under their

Column 511

control. Recently, a number of orders have required local authorities to use derelict land. I see no reason on earth why a local council cannot be given permission to take over land after demolition if it remains derelict for an excessively long time. The point remains that assurances would have been given in the application for demolition in the first place. The local authority could then use those assurances compulsorily to purchase the site, if necessary. As I said, the fait accompli problem caused by demolition is the one that affects my constituency most--the developer who puts a gun at the head of the planning department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also talked about premature demolition of houses and vacancies in residential accommodation in anticipation of development, which causes disquiet among local people. That can help to spread blight, but there is, as Dobry said, a need to preserve commercial and community use, and the premature demolition of shops in a redevelopment area is clearly harmful to the local economy and amenities.

Many people believe that preventing the demolition of useful residential buildings, theatres and cinemas is equally important. There is such a head of steam behind this issue that I am surprised that the Government give every sign of being unwilling to accept this memorable little Bill.

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that it was a Conservative Government who commissioned the Dobry report, at a time when the property market was booming. By the time the report was completed, the property boom had collapsed and a Labour Government were in power. They published their proposals for what they called community land legislation. Cullingworth's "Town and Country Planning In Britain" an excellent tome that I invite all my right hon. and hon. Friends to read, says :

"In short, the planning scene had changed fundamentally. In purely administrative terms, authorities concerned with distinguishing between applications for exempt development, excepted development designated relevant development, and non-designated relevant development could not also be expected to distinguish between class A and class B applications, and between outline illustrative, detailed and guideline applications'."

Government decisions on the Dobry report were set out in their circular in 1975 and all the recommendations for change in the system were rejected-- even though it was stressed that the objectives could be achieved if local authorities adopted what was called "the most efficient working methods".

Dobry's view was that it is not so much the system that is wrong as the way in which it is used. That was endorsed by the Government--even though they rejected many of the recommendations--who commended the report

"to students of our planning system as an invaluable compendium of information about the working of the existing development control process, and to local authorities and developers as a source of advice on the best way to operate within it."

So Dobry had it right ; but a Labour Government were responsible for its rejection and now, ironically, a different Government have rejected the excellent legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East on two occasions.

I have set out as comprehensively as I can the real problem that affects my constituency and others. It is not

Column 512

a vast problem : there are not masses of demolitions, but when they happen they can take place in extremely sensitive places and greatly affect local people.

There is no logic in allowing a person under our planning laws not to make a planning application to alter a property by less than 10 per cent. when we also allow a person not to make a planning application when he alters his property by 100 per cent.--by pulling it down. Where is the logic in making a person put in a planning application if he alters his house by between 100 per cent. and 10 per cent., but not if he alters it by less than 10 per cent. or by more than 100 per cent? The entire removal of a property presents the strongest possible need for an application for development. Planning applications are required by law, because planning affects other local people besides the person altering the property. We have planning applications because we recognise local concerns about the environment. It is therefore ridiculous that no planning application is necessary when a person pulls a whole property down. I recommend this excellent Bill to the House.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your guidance as to whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he intends to come to the House this morning to make a statement on the House of Fraser affair. I would not ask such a question on a Friday were it not for the devious behaviour of the Secretary of State yesterday, when he announced that the Serious Fraud Office would not be prosecuting but he will have failed to provide until next Wednesday the report on which that decision was partially based.

May I ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if we do not have a statement today, we shall at least have one next Wednesday, because this is a Westland-type affair in which both the honesty and integrity of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the Prime Minister have been called into question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I have had no application for a statement to be made, but no doubt what has been said will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary who is in his place.

10.59 am

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North) : I welcome this short Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and which is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). They expressed the hope that the Government will accept the Bill as a touchstone of the Government's concern for the environment.

In the opinion polls one looks for issues about which people are concerned and finds that they are concerned about this issue. I have no worries about the next general election, but I hope that before the time comes the Government will remember what people are thinking about. They are thinking about the preservation of the environment, and not just the green environment, smokeless zones and the burning of old boots, but about people having decent places in which to live. Such matters

Column 513

will influence how people will vote. I shall be shocked and horrified if the Government do not accept this Bill with acclaim, because it will reduce much suffering.

It is amazing that houses can be knocked down without permission. I do not know how anybody could oppose the Bill because it is such obvious common sense. Houses are part of Britain's social capital. They cost tens of thousands or hundreds or thousands to build and before they are knocked down a decision should be made that something better should replace them. If such a decision is not made, the houses should be left alone. We do not want the whole of Britain being made into a conservation area, but if that would stop such demolition I should even go that far.

As my hon. Friends have said, buildings are usually knocked down and replaced by something that will make more profit more quickly. That usually means that good family houses are demolished and generations of families are broken. The houses are replaced by tiny flats, reminiscent of a doll's house society, with window boxes the only place where there is anything growing. We call this the century of improvement, but people in the next century will laugh at us. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber. I live in his constituency and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East know that three houses from where I live a big old house was knocked down for redevelopment. A planning application was turned down by the council and was passed to the Department. In one of its wiser moods the Department turned it down. Although we cannot always rely on the Department being wise-- Mr. Hanley rose --

Sir Rhodes Boyson : I shall give way in a moment when I have finished my sentence, otherwise I shall forget where I have got to. The application was turned down by the council for the second time. The matter was spread over five or six years and it cost local residents thousands of pounds to fight the issue. The council in Harrow is Conservative, but this is a problem with all parties. Permission has now been given by the Council for a block of flats, which will change the whole area. The effect will be like leprosy and good houses in which family after family have been brought up will be replaced by tiny boxes. I trust that the Bill will have all- party support.

Mr. Hanley : My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) referred, is a sponsor of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is unable to speak to the Bill because he assists the Minister.

Sir Rhodes Boyson : I felt that I was speaking for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and I am sure that he would have endorsed what I have said. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted that his Parliamentary Private Secretary has been assisted in that way. I thought that it was my duty to involve him in everything that I said, and I am sorry that he was not here to acclaim the phrases that I used.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East knows about big store development, which is a menance. Superstores should be outside cities. They should not be near main roads where traffic is held up, and should not

Column 514

involve knocking down good houses. The Kenton road bridges my constituency and the constituency of Harrow, East. One of the great store firms has been trying to build a superstore here and that will mean the demolition of superb houses. It will also mean that traffic will not be able to move and people will be playing chess on the way to work. Traffic on the Kenton road does not move now for three hours in the morning and for three hours at night. People will soon have to leave for work at 2 am or go by parachute or helicopter.

The plans were called in by the Department, whose prayers were answered by the Almighty in the right way, because the plans were turned down. They were turned down a second time by the council, but now the store firm is trying for a third time and is buying up houses. About 20 or 30 three and four-bedroon houses, the basis of family life, have been bought. They were built in the 1930s and 1940s and would normally last longer than some houses that are being built today. I am not saying that they will be knocked down, but I suspect that that will happen because the houses are being bought up at above the market price. A road could be built there and perhaps one could get through on a bicycle on a good day. The houses could be knocked down at any time and more family houses will have gone.

The Bill is long overdue. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has arrived. I referred to certain events in his constituency and he would have supported me with acclaim if he had been here. I know that he will regret for the rest of his life that he was not here.

I hope that next year we shall see a consolidation measure for planning. That is desperately needed and if the Government want to revive themselves- -and I should like to see some resuscitation from time to time--such an environment measure would help tremendously and would show that at last some sense is coming back to us. I have the greatest respect for the Minister and I trust that at the end of the debate I shall respect him even more, because I hope that he will assure us that if the Bill does not go through, the Government will deal with three other matters. It would be nice to hear what a consolidation Bill will contain.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about appeals. At present there is no natural justice on appeals. A developer can appeal, but people who live in an area and whose environment will be destroyed cannot. There should be an appeal system against developers. The system should work both ways and natural justice is long overdue. Secondly, no one should be able to apply for planning permission unless he owns the houses that will be affected or has written permission from the people who live in them.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Hear, hear.

Sir Rhodes Boyson : My hon. Friend took me by surprise with his naval "Hear, hear". Only we two who were in the Navy are able to recognise the strength of that acclamation. I am glad that I did not serve under my hon. Friend because I would have been afeard at such a fierce turn of phrase. I am grateful for his support.

Blackmail comes into this matter. People buy houses and apply for planning permission. They then say to a little lady that she will be the only one left and had better sell. I know of a case where permission was sought for

Column 515

development affecting 700 houses and the prospective developer dd not own one of them. Even the lampposts had signs on them. Hundreds of people living there were terrified because they felt that somehow they were being threatened.

My final point concerns the preservation of the green belt of suburbia. Green belts in the countryside are all very well, but most people do not have the time to enjoy them. They want to enjoy the green belt that is provided by their gardens, rather than suffer back-garden development. The same applies in respect of playing fields and public open spaces. Two are currently under threat in my own constituency, including Westfield college sports field. In my constituency, sports field after sports field has disappeared, so less sport will be played in the future than in the past. Fortunately, the plan concerning the one now under threat has been called in by the Department of the Environment. Although I cannot influence its decision, I may say that it is greatly desired by my constituents that both applications should be rejected and that the two sports fields be kept open.

As to back-garden development, reference has been made to the use of helicopters in photographing potential development sites. A man knocked on my door offering me an aerial photograph of my house. He explained that a helicopter had been used to fly over the area to identify potential development sites, and thought that I should like to buy a copy of the photograph. I did not know what to do with him. Was one to attack him, have him arrested, or reward him for his initiative? I was amazed that he had the effrontery not only to assist in destroying my neighbourhood but to try to sell me copies of his photographs as well.

I do not suggest that the Bill can deal with such a situation, but the problem of back-garden development certainly exists in my constituency-- particularly in Tudor gardens, about which I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister again only this week. The Bill itself, the size of the attendance by my hon. Friends, and the support of the hon. Member for Normanton show the amount of public concern for environmental protection. It is wrong that houses can be so easily knocked down. The existing appeals system is also wrong.

I look forward to the Bill receiving its Second Reading, and to receiving an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bills for consideration next Session will include one that covers the right of appeal by the public against development, the obtaining of written consent from the owners of all the houses involved in a development before a planning application is made, and additional measures to guard against back-garden and playing field development. I entirely support the Bill.

11.12 am

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : I declare an interest, in that I have been practising at the planning Bar for more than 20 years. The Bill will undoubtedly give rise to many planning appeals, which will no doubt be very beneficial to the planning Bar. Therefore, I have a clear interest in favour of the passing of the Bill. I have a number of reservations about the Bill as drafted, and suggest that a number of its aspects require further thought. I acknowledge the popular concern, to

Column 516

which my hon. Friends have referred, relating to the demolition of large houses with large gardens and their replacement by developments of an over-high density that are inappropriate to the surrounding area and very often contrary to the provisions of the local plan and development plan. Such concern is widespread in the constituency that I represent and that in which I live. There is a need for policy consideration and a strong case for more intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in local plans and the implementation of planning controls.

Local authorities are often to blame for developments that take place on their own land, which aspect requires even more urgent consideration. I wholly support the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) about sports fields and gardens. The erosion of sports and public open spaces, and of private open spaces, in London-- particularly west London--is a matter of considerable concern that ought to be occupying the attention of the Department of the Environment. It is no accident that the existing legislation is as it is, and that there is an absence of any controls on demolition other than where it constitutes an engineering operation, or where the building is listed or is in a conservation area. The absence of any controls where no engineering operation is involved dates from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was passed by the post-war Labour Government.

During the debate, my hon. Friends referred to a number of sound Conservative principles, but I suggest that a number of sound Conservative principles were enacted by the post-war Labour Government--such as the assumption that an owner should be free to do as he wishes with his property and should be allowed to do so, provided that it is not objectionable on grounds of land use or planning policy. That is a key principle in current legislation, which relies on the premise that the self -interest of the landowner is not to keep his land empty and non-productive and that there will be a strong motivation for him to develop it whenever that is possible.

One must question whether such a Bill is really needed. Would its objectives be better achieved by the use of existing powers or by modifying existing policies? Should we not be careful about imposing more controls than are needed? Any new controls should also be certain of achieving their stated purpose.

The principal objective of the Bill that I discern from the speeches of my hon. Friends is that of preventing sympathetic buildings, often located in large gardens, from being demolished when the sites are either likely to be left derelict for some time and become an eyesore, or be replaced by a development that is out of keeping with the area or at too high a density-- or perhaps both. If the Bill is passed, on what criteria would permission to demolish be given or withheld? One is talking of houses that are not of special architectural or historical interest or in a conservation area.

Next Section

Home Page