House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Mar 1990

Mr. Wilkinson : But my hon. and learned Friend will agree that they are nice to live in, and that the people who do so appreciate them.

Mr. Ground : Permission to demolish such properties cannot be refused on the grounds of historical or architectural interest. Perhaps such properties should be in

Column 517

a conservation area, but by definition they are not, so the matters that could be relied on to prevent or to restrict redevelopment in a conservation area are not applicable.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Given my hon. and learned Friend's considerable expertise, I am listening to him with much interest. Is he saying that, even if the Bill were passed, there would be no planning grounds to refuse permission to demolish a house that was neither listed nor in a conservation area?

Mr. Ground : I am not saying that there would be no grounds ; I am asking the House to consider what the grounds would be for refusing consent. My hon. Friends have assumed that planning permission for redevelopment or for new building on such a site would be forthcoming from the planning authority or from the Secretary of State. If planning permission were forthcoming from the local authority, under existing practice there could be no justifiable planning reason for refusing consent. If consent were refused by the local authority, under existing law and practice the Secretary of State may make an order for costs against it.

Our current practice may need revision, and perhaps the fact that a house is nice to live in should be incorporated in legislation, but without the introduction of some new concept, I can see no valid reason for refusing planning consent.

Mr. Wilkinson : Will my hon. and learned Friend explain why in certain residential areas, in which there are neither listed buildings nor conservation areas, permission must be requested to cut down trees on which preservation orders have been placed, yet houses require no such permission to be demolished? I find that perplexing. Will my hon. and learned Friend turn his legal mind to that?

Mr. Ground : I should not wish to detain the House with an exposition on tree preservation orders, but the planning policy in the local plan could encourage the retention of existing housing and discourage its replacement by new housing.

For buildings developed some years ago, which have generous accommodation and space and which, although not of historic interest or in a conservation area, are valuable and should be retained, it is perfectly possible to achieve that end under local planning policy, which should be strong enough, if attacked on appeal, to prevent the granting of planning permission. That would be an effective remedy to achieve my hon. Friend's objective, but the simple requirement to obtain planning permission for demolition without a change of policy, would not do so.

The Bill would be ineffective in reducing the risk of dereliction. The planning Acts contain no positive measures to compel a developer to proceed with a development. If he is required to obtain planning permission before being allowed to demolish, there is nothing to prevent him from applying for another planning permission, because there is no limit on the number of planning permissions that can validly exist for a site. The freedom to carry out any one of those developments is in the hands of the developer, provided he has not lost the benefit of one of the planning permissions by taking some thoroughly inconsistent step that makes them impossible to implement.

I do not believe that the Bill would achieve the objective of reducing dereliction, and it may impose an additional

Column 518

bureaucratic requirement, which could add to the period required for redevelopment. Instead of leaving a site derelict, it could lead to properties being left empty while permission was sought. From my experience as a resident and as a Member. I am sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill. I should like to see them achieved by local and, if necessary, national policy changes. But I doubt the wisdom of making that additional requirement without corresponding changes in law and practice to make it effective.

11.26 am

Mr. Ian Stewart (Hertfordshire, North) : The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) was important, because it raised for the first time some of the Bill's practical implications.

I am very sympathetic--I may go so far as to say extremely sympathetic--to the concept that led my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Dykes) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to introduce the Bill, and I congratulate them on doing so. There is no doubt that the random demolition of buildings has caused many difficulties--not only for the environment but for transport and many other things in urban areas.

With the exception of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), hon. Members who have spoken represent London constituencies or constituencies close to London. I should like to make a few comments as someone who represents what is basically a rural area. North Hertfordshire is between 30 and 50 miles from London, but it is sufficiently far away not to be affected by the same considerations as those raised by my hon. Friends.

My constituency covers about 150 square miles, and there are four separate towns--one ancient market town of some size, Hitchin, two smaller towns, Baldock and Royston, and Letchworth, the first garden city in the world. The planning considerations that affect them are very different for each. They are also rather different from the planning considerations that affect the London area, about which we have heard so far.

I want to consider the practical implications in the planning process and the redevelopment process in those areas of my constituency if the Bill were to reach the statute book. I am open-minded at this stage, but I am a bit sceptical about the practical implications of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to give us more insight into the Government's thinking and into what legislation may be in train which, whatever the fate of the Bill, may incorporate some recognition of the need to tackle the problems caused by demolition and by the relative lack of control over demolition at present.

The most difficult question is what is the interest of the community, as represented by the planning authority, as opposed to the interest of the current and future occupants of the properties concerned. I was interested in the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston about which factors would be taken into account in considering the demolition aspects of planning permission under such a system. I have three main areas of concern, and I hope that, later in the debate, some light may be thrown on them.

I comment in passing--this is no reflection on the Chair--that it is in some ways a pity to have so many

Column 519

contributions from sponsors of the Bill coming first, because fewer of them are left to respond to the queries and concerns of other hon. Members.

I have listened carefully to earlier contributions. There are some gaps in the argument for the Bill, which is in a rather bare form. One could argue that, by adding many new clauses and accompanying the Bill with a considerable back-up of guidance or regulation about the way in which such a system will work, one could formulate a new system which would enable planning procedures to cover demolition as effectively as building. However, I must confess, without having any grudge against the Bill--I have some enthusiasm for the underlying idea that demolition has now become a considerable problem which needs attention--that I am not convinced by the arguments I have heard this morning that its aims could be achieved.

My first point is not my main one. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, we should not lose sight of the fact that local authorities are not necessarily reliable in their opinion of what should or should not be demolished. Part of my early political experience was working in the borough of Lewisham, and the first constituency that I contested at a general election was Hammersmith, North. In both cases, the local authorities committed widespread demolition of what would now be regarded as very attractive houses which were built perhaps 100 years ago. Many were in need of modernisation and perhaps some extension, but their demolition has left great areas in those boroughs deprived of older-fashioned housing of a type that is now more popular.

The boroughs replaced those houses with some monstrosities. Tower blocks not only generate terrific winds but provide no suitable play areas equivalent to the gardens which the houses used to have. People who live on the upper floors, especially those with young families, have a difficult and hazardous occupation.

I remind the House of that episode, which happened mainly in the 1960s, to point out that one cannot assume automatically that local authorities possess a reliable wisdom about which areas of urban landscape can be done away with and replaced by some residential or other building. Abuse by local authorities can manifest itself in other ways.

I have the misfortune to represent a constituency that has Stevenage on its borders. About 20 years ago, Stevenage was within the constituency, but it grew so fast that it had to be taken out when the boundaries were redrawn. It is a great post-war new town and is laid out on such extravagant lines that there is a vast amount of wasted space for accommodation and other building within its boundaries. Yet the borough council has relentlessly refused to encourage infilling and development within its boundaries. To my astonishment and dismay, it has succeeded in persuading the Secretary of State that its requirement for extra housing should be achieved by pushing out its boundaries. It is already far too big geographically for an urban area in the middle of one of the home counties. The solution has been that its boundaries should be developed further, and they are creeping into my constituency,

Column 520

although there is a great deal of wasted space within Stevenage. That is a direct result of the planning policy of Stevenage borough council, in which I have no confidence.

I will forbear pointing out to hon. Members the political complexion of Stevenage borough council, because it is possible that councils of other political complexions may have ideas about the way in which the locality should develop which are unacceptable in the long term, which may conflict strongly with the individual views of people who live in or near that area and which may not take their interests properly into account. It is an important, although not a central, point that we should recognise that planning authorities will not necessarily operate in the long-term interests of people in the area on demolition and reconstruction.

My second point is more important and serious. Will a procedure such as that in the Bill slow down what is already a rather arthritic process? Planning applications are considered by planning officers, then by planning sub-committees and then by the whole council, after which they may go to appeal. The system is already pretty protracted. In my constituency, there has been considerable pressure for extra accommodation. One cause is that the whole planning process takes a long time to complete. We must accept that, with the population pressures in the south-east, further dwelling units--a horrible phrase, but it is the jargon--must be provided on a considerable scale. Figures from the Department of the Environment show that, in the last 14 years of the century, there will be almost 1 million extra households in the south-east.

The reason is not that people are moving in from other parts of the country. Indeed, people are tending to move out of the area, which is not surprising in view of house prices. The reason is that family units are becoming smaller, and that people are getting married younger and wanting to be in their own accommodation. People want to live near their families and in the area in which they were brought up, so there is a need for more units than there were before. That can be achieved only by increased density, by expanding the boundaries of urban areas or, in some cases, by replacing older accommodation with new accommodation which contains more separate units.

There is a strong economic and social motivation--which, in itself, is not objectionable--for replacing some larger, older properties with new, more separate accommodation units. That is happening in, for instance, Hitchin, Baldock and Royston. In my area, the problem has been dealt with partly through expansion of the areas over which development is carried out and partly through some infilling, but also through the replacement of older properties. I fear that the Bill could slow down the process.

That leads me to my third major worry, which reflects what my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) has said. If I were a member of the relevant sub-committee of North Hertfordshire district council, or of the planning officer's department, I am not sure what recomendation I could possibly make for or against the demolition of specific buildings : surely I would not have to say, "It is perfectly acceptable to knock down any or all of the houses in Acacia avenue, but none must be knocked down in Willow crescent." One of my hon. Friends observed earlier that a homogeneous row of houses, of uniform and attractive appearance, would become very unattractive if a gaping hole suddenly appeared because one of the houses had been knocked down to be replaced by a building

Column 521

containing perhaps half a dozen flats. None of the Bill's sponsors, and none of those who have spoken most passionately in its favour, has addressed the further question of how to devise a remotely fair or reasonable system for deciding which property should receive such treatment.

The present presumption is that development may take place provided that it conforms to the existing criteria, which include the local plan and requirements relating to access, traffic, density and infrastructure. Clearly the criteria will be heavily influenced by the supply, or lack of supply, of housing in the area ; they will also take into account such matters as design and aesthetics, although not to any major extent.

The argument advanced this morning, however, is based principally on less tangible factors such as appearance and the general environmental impact on a particular collection of houses built in a certain period and style. Of course residents will become used to the appearance of a locality : some of the towns and villages in my constituency are very attractive, and I would be the last to want them to change. It is, however, exceptionally difficult to quantify or codify such factors in a form that would operate effectively in the appeal system and would enable councils to deal fairly and consistently with the collective interests of local people.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Does my hon. Friend envisage a two-tier system whereby some buildings, although not considered to possess enough intrinsic merit to warrant their being listed or forming part of a conservation area, would nevertheless be refused demolition, for no obvious reason?

Mr. Stewart : My hon. Friend must be a mind-reader : I was coming to that point. We already have procedures to allow the listing of individual buildings, and the designation of groups of buildings as a conservation area. The Bill, I believe, would create, if not a universal urban listed- building or conservation-area designation, at least the presumption of a third tier, which could be invoked to prevent or discourage development that could only lead to demolition.

Mr. Ground : Is my hon. Friend aware that an informal third category already exists in a number of areas? It is variously described, but is sometimes referred to as "buildings of townscape value".

Mr. Stewart : I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his helpful intervention. It seems to me almost inevitable that such a concept will develop if the Bill is enacted, and arguably it should do so regardless. My constituents seem much more concerned about planning applications nowadays : they worry not only about what may appear on a particular site, but about the possible loss of what they regard as an attractive prospect or a social amenity.

It would be dangerous to enact such legislation without a much clearer idea of how it will work in practice, and whether the presumptions about demolition and development will change. The argument that demolition would in itself damage or remove a building or buildings of aesthetic value or general public amenity could act as a focus for those opposed to all development : it could be used not for the purpose that lies behind the Bill, but as an

Column 522

obstruction to development that is, as far as I can see, unavoidable in my constituency and those of a number of London Members.

I say that not because I am an expert on planning, but merely because, like all hon. Members, I receive a good deal of constituency feedback on planning matters, both from those who want more accommodation built to ease the housing pressure and from those who oppose a change in the appearance of their locality. I

suspect--although I am willing to be disabused--that, if the legislation were enforced without careful consideration of the criteria for and against demolition, planning permission procedures would be much lengthier and more complicated, and also more difficult to implement.

We would also become confused about the purpose of a restriction on demolition. I do not want to finish on a carping note, nor do I disagree with the Bill's principle. I do not believe that wanton and random demolition, often in the worst interests of commercial development, should be allowed to continue. We must achieve greater control over such demolition. However, I believe that the issues are not nearly as straightforward as they appear in this two clause Bill.

I want to end with a point which might apply whether or not demolition is addressed by his Bill or in any other way, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will consider this. I have been struck by the difficulties facing pedestrians, traffic and the general public as a result of the redevelopment of urban sites.

Many traffic delays occur because people park in the wrong places and often because of natural congestion. However, many of the problems are caused by the intolerable intrusion on to our highways of work around building sites, where land is fenced off and lorries may be parked in inconvenient places. What constraints exist on people who want to demolish and redevelop property? What costs must they bear to compensate for the nuisance to the immediate local community and for the vast amount of man hours that are wasted as a result of traffic delays? I hope that that factor will weigh more strongly in decisions to allow demolition to replace buildings, particularly in the most crowded areas of our towns and cities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood for giving us this opportunity to discuss a very important matter. Whatever happens to this Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment will take seriously the concerns that have been expressed by all hon. Members about the potential abuses in demolition, however best my colleagues decide to resolve the problems.

11.52 am

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : There is a common feeling in the House today that we all accept the need for a measure to stop the capricious demolition of houses by people who do that for reasons that are not in the interests of the local community. However, the Bill highlights wider problems than those that it attempts to address directly. It raises problems in our planning laws, which are long overdue for review and perhaps systematic reform. There are many abuses of the planning system, in addition to that described in the Bill.

Column 523

We have heard some very well argued and cogent reasons why the Bill may be technically flawed. However, we must consider reasons, which may not be within the legal framework, why buildings are demolished prior to the granting of planning permission for their replacement. We must consider why that happens, because if we understand the reasons we shall be better able to tackle the problem.

Mr. Dykes : Does my hon. Friend agree that the description of the Bill as technically flawed in its present form on Second Reading is not correct because it is quite normal for private Member's Bills and others to have additional technical clauses drafted to them in Committee to take care of the technicalities? The Bill has a positive advantage in that it is a two-clause Bill with a basic principle built into it.

Mr. Carrington : I agree with much of that. However, the point has been made cogently that the problem ranges wider than the issue addressed in the Bill. Consequently, the knock-on effects--for want of a better description--of the changes that the Bill would introduce into the planning system must be considered when we take account of the necessary legislative changes. Obviously the Bill can be amended in Committee to address those problems, but the problems are substantial.

I want now to consider the reasons why buildings are demolished prior to the granting of planning permission. No one who owns a building would want to demolish it and leave the site vacant and not producing an income. No one would want investment in a property to become a hole in which to sink more money instead of something that might produce income or serve as a home. It is very unlikely that it will be in the interests of a developer-- for want of a better expression--to knock down a building prior to having an alternative use for that site with which he or she proposes to go ahead. Our present planning laws create circumstances in which it is in the interests of developers to demolish property without prior planning permission. Many of the reasons for that arise largely from frustrations with the planning system.

There are delays in the planning system at present. If one makes an application to develop a site in most of the London boroughs--and certainly in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham--that planning permission may take up to six months to reach the first stage in the process. One also faces the expectation that the local planning decision will be taken for reasons that may be seen as capricious. It may not be taken for reasons that are designed purely to reflect the planning needs of the site.

That leads to an automatic appeals process straight to the Department of the Environmnt. That process is supposed to protect both sides, to ensure that local decisions are taken in the interests of the community and in the interests of the developer. However, I believe that there are serious problems with the appeals process at the DOE. A specialist inspector makes a career of sitting on planning inquiries, either public inquiries or written-in inquiries. He will take evidence and then make a decision.

Column 524

Mr. Arbuthnot : My hon. Friend said that the appeals process is intended to protect both sides. Does he accept that there is no appeal against the granting of planning permission, but there is appeal only against its refusal?

Mr. Carrington : I agree with my hon. Friend and I intended to consider that point later.

We are seeing increasing abuses of the planning system by local authorities, which grant themselves planning permission on their own sites for developments that are considerably in excess of any that they would grant for a third party. The objectors cannot appeal against the council granting its own planning permission. That is the greatest abuse of the lack of appeal once planning permission has been granted.

I believe that the inspector's role is inherently unsatisfactory. An inspector may or may not take a decision based upon an objective view of the evidence. No doubt he will take a decision that is strictly in accordance with the legal requirements. However, as in any planning decision, a considerable amount of subjective evidence must be assessed by the inspector. On legal grounds, his decision could go either way. All hon. Members have seen examples in their constituencies of when an inspector's decision was controversial and reflected his own prejudices.

We have a somewhat capricious appeals system that does not work satisfactorily. It was never intended to work in that way. Certainly, in many London areas, it is effectively a planning process of first call. Having waited for their statutory eight weeks, developers will automatically appeal. Instead of a local authority bringing local considerations to bear on planning applications, it will now consider automatically opposing an appeal to the inspector. The inspector effectively takes the decision of first call in any planning application. That system is inherently unsatisfactory, and the appeals system was never designed to cope effectively, nor does it cope effectively.

Developers end up with considerable frustration with the planning system, and that leads to the demolition of buildings. It forces a decision on to the planning process. The local authority and the inspector are forced into a decision when a site causes considerable local aggravation because it is an eyesore, because it is being squatted on by people in caravans, or purely because of weeds. That produces pressure for the granting of planning permission, which would not otherwise exist.

There is another effect on developers. In inner London, developers increasingly find themselves subject to a section 52

agreement--especially in respect of large developments--to provide what is somewhat laughingly called planning gain to the community for a development. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a section 52 agreement. In practice, a local authority often sells planning permission to a developer in return for what is perceived to be an asset, whether in the form of cash or housing built elsewhere in the community. The local authority grants planning permission that it would not otherwise have granted, and the process rapidly becomes an abuse of the planning system. Developers will resist a section 52 agreement by applying any pressure that they can. By pre-emptive demolition of an existing building, they strengthen their own hand when negotiating their section

Column 525

52 agreements. The other reason for demolition, which I suspect applies in particular to well-established urban areas, is pre-emptive strike against the listing of a building.

For a great many buildings in this country--fortunately, fewer since we reviewed the statutory lists of buildings of historical interest--if they had been brought to the attention of the authorities in time, they would unquestionably have been listed. If they were not listed when initially brought to the attention of the authorities, given enough time and the changing perceptions of the desirability of retaining buildings, they would be listed then. Ten years ago, there was a perception that buildings that were built in the 1930s were only occasionally of a sufficient quality to be listed. There is now a growing conviction in conservation and architectural circles that many buildings from the 1930s should be statutorily listed--far more than have been statutorily listed. There are now more listed buildings from the 1950s than anyone who was brought up at that time would reasonably consider possible. There are fashion changes in listing requirements.

There will always be gaps in statutory listing, which can be filled only when the gaps are pointed out. A gap is frequently pointed out when there is an application to redevelop a building. The developer, knowing full well that there is a possibility that the building that he wishes to demolish will be statutorily listed, will pre-emptively demolish the building overnight. Some spectacular examples have hit the national press--for example, the Hoover building on the Great West road some years ago, and Kensington town hall about seven years ago. Many smaller examples do not fit into the same category. The problem can be tackled by establishing conservation areas. However, it must be recognised that many buildings are inherently desirable, but they are not in places where we would wish to create conservation areas. They may be isolated within a modern development or they may be in a shopping area where one would not wish to go through all the necessary planning problems that are inherent in a conservation area. There is no doubt that there is a strong case for controlling the demolition of buildings prior to planning permission being granted.

Mr. Arbuthnot : My hon. Friend spoke about the Hoover building and Kensington town hall. I was a local councillor in Kensington and I was vaguely involved in the demolition of the building. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Bill would not address those buildings because it refers only to dwelling houses?

Mr. Carrington : I certainly recognise that point. That is one reason why I expressed concern about the extent of the Bill. I used those two examples to illustrate a well-publicised facet of the problem with dwelling houses. Many dwelling houses have the same statutory problems. I do not criticise the demolition of Kensington town hall--there were good reasons for it. I have been a long-standing resident of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea and I am well aware of the problems that existed. There was a strong argument that the potential listing of Kensington town hall was done by the Greater London Council for reasons other than conservation. That is another matter. The fact remains that the demolition was done to avoid statutory listing.

Mr. Ground : Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that, in principle, he would support consent being required for the demolition of any building? What is the basis for

Column 526

confining protection to residential purposes? As he has pointed out, commercial buildings often occupy large areas and give rise to large-scale problems.

Mr. Carrington : I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is unreal in planning regulations to make a pernicious distinction between domestic dwellings and commercial developments. The attraction of a building to a community lies in its design and nature, not in the use to which it is put. In other words, an attractive, well-designed and historically interesting building could have a variety of uses within its lifetime. We have only to look at the uses to which redundant churches are put to see how true that can be. A building can start as an ecclesiastical building, become a domestic dwelling, and end up as an office block, all within the lifetime of the same structure. The same artistic and conservation problems are inherent in such a building, although the different pressures to allow change of use may be inherent in the use of the building rather than in its architectural design.

The problem is how to achieve the necessary control. We can end up with a situation in which the undoubted rights of a property owner to enjoy his property free from any outside constraint are completely out of balance with his neighbours' rights to maintain the amenity of their properties. We must achieve a balance in planning law between the rights of the person who owns the property to enjoy that property and the rights of the local community, including the neighbours or, increasingly, the rights of the rest of the community, to preserve the overall aspect of their area. In urban planning terms, that can mean a community's right to maintain the streetscape. That is an important balance.

There are several basic problems with the Bill. One is that an appeal process would have to be allowed for any application to demolish that is not connected to an application to redevelop. Obviously, an appeal process would present difficulties because a local authority could refuse an application in the knowledge that the appeal process could be so stretched out as to make any reasonable application to demolish a useless tool for the developer who could not then make proper use of his own land. Therefore, in my view, if after a certain period--perhaps just a few weeks- -no objection about the demolition was made to the local authority permission to demolish should be deemed to have been granted. That would mean that permission could not be withheld without an extremely good reason. We must also find means of stopping the unreasonable delays in the planning process. I cannot believe that we should willingly add the problems of an appeal on the application process to the burdens that the planners or the local authorities already face without addressing the reasons for those great delays. The local authorities and the appeal process must be required to ensure that planning permission is granted within a reasonable time.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Bill, which fills a great gap in our planning laws. However, it is just one aspect of the now absolutely necessary overall review of our planning laws. We must urgently address the conflict relating to the powers of the local planners, granted by the Department of the Environment which, as I mentioned when discussing the role of inspectors and the appeal processes, have now got out of line. The use of the section 52 agreement is now a major scandal, which also needs to be addressed urgently. As my hon. Friend the Member for

Column 527

Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, there is a great problem with the objector's right to appeal on a planning permission that has been granted by a council, especially in relation to its own land.

I hope that the Bill progresses further today. However, if it does not manage to achieve its Second Reading today--for whatever reason--I hope that the Government will bear in mind the very real problems that it attempts to address and that in the new planning Bill, which is being trailed for the next Session, they will ensure that those problems are corrected. I hope that a way will be found to ensure that the abuses about which we have heard today are brought to an end.

12.13 pm

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer) : My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) began his important speech by talking about a common desire to protect the environment. He was being over-generous, because the total absence of any Opposition Members from this debate seems to suggest that the "environmental credentials"--to use one of my hon. Friend's phrases--of the Labour party have evaporated into thin air. So far there have been only two contributions from Labour Members--perhaps there will be more later--one of which related to Harrods. It seems bizarre that the future of Harrods can be of greater importance today than the future of the environment.

The House is undoubtedly indebted to my hon. Friend for giving it its first chance for many months to debate planning matters. The debate has properly ranged over a wide variety of planning issues, not the least important of which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood made a cogent and well-argued case for including the demolition of houses in planning legislation. He was ably supported by the Bill's sponsors, and most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), to whom the whole House is indebted for his hard work on this issue over some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood put it, the case a persuasive one. Opportunistic developers buy large houses and demolish them, leaving the site vacant, thus exerting pressure on both neighbouring property owners to sell and on local authorities to give planning permission for the redevelopment. That is a persuasive scenario.

My hon. Friend's warnings relate to the threat of town cramming and to housing development of an inappropriate density. Like others, my hon. Friend has also expressed understandable concern for the future of unlisted but "interesting" buildings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has called them, such as Victorian and Edwardian houses. The Government accept that those anxieties need to be seriously considered afresh and with an open mind. However, in so doing we are bound to take into consideration the other perspectives from which many people see those issues. Some of those perspectives were described from a position of great knowledge by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Column 528

Feltham and Teston (Mr. Ground), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham.

Some of those different perspectives include the rights of private property owners within the planning system. We have to consider whether it is right to restrict an owner from demolishing his own building when it is in a poor state of repair, when it requires a great deal of work to bring it up to modern standards or where the demolition of the building could improve the environment--as indeed it might. There must at least be compelling reasons for interfering with the freedom and rights of ownership.

What is more, as several of my hon. Friends have said, the Government have been trying to lift the burdens on business and on individuals wherever we can and to eliminate unnecessary central and local bureaucracy--

Mr. O'Brien : Before the Minister pours further cold water on the Bill, will he continue to address his remarks to the future of the environment? No Opposition Member has suggested that environmental interests should not be safeguarded in the Bill. The Minister is turning his argument against the principle of the Bill to try to destroy it. If he and the Government are so keen on supporting it, why does he not say so, so that we can get on with the conclusion of its Second Reading?

Mr. Spicer : The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of trying to make out, perhaps for the benefit of the television cameras, that there is a lot of support from his party. He should have said that no Labour Member is present and sat down.

Mr. O'Brien : We want it in Committee.

Mr. Spicer : I have not yet come to any conclusion. In my own time, I shall come to a conclusion, but I wish to make my speech in my own time. There is not much support on the Labour Benches, judging by today's debate. Except for this moment, when there are a few Labour Members present, the Labour Benches have been completely empty.

Mr. Arbuthnot : In view of that intervention, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Labour Government had an opportunity to enact the Dobry report? They decided not to. Perhaps that is the reason for the complete lack of support on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Spicer : My hon. Friend is correct. As I recollect, Anthony Crosland turned down the recommendations of that report. He said that there might come a day when some of the recommendations might be enacted. He gave good reasons of bureaucracy and clogging up the entire planning system for turning the report down. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was a Labour Government who turned down that report. We are being given synthetic stuff from the other side. Only one Labour Member has spoken except the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who spoke about Harrods.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : We have not been waffling on like you.

Mr. Spicer : I have only just started, so the hon. Gentleman has more to come.

Mr. Forman : My hon. Friend was addressing the philosophical point of the rights of owners. Does he accept

Column 529

that there is an important distinction between owner-occupiers who intend to redevelop their own property because they live there and want to redevelop for some perfectly understandable, beneficial reason and owners of property companies--rapacious owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to them--who involve themselves in demolition exercises simply to make a quick profit to the detriment of the local environment? Does he not see that important distinction?

Mr. Spicer : I see the distinction that my hon. Friend makes. A point that I shall make in a moment is that we shall have to address the extent of wrongdoing--if that is the right way of putting it--by people such as my hon. Friend mentioned.

The Government have tried to lift the burden on individuals and businesses and to eliminate unnecessary central and local government bureaucracy. I shall leave for a few moments my conclusions about the Bill, but one thing that cannot be denied is that it goes against the trend of deregulation and will increase the number of planning applications and appeals.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) questioned what effect the Bill might have. The Bill would add to the number of planning applications and appeal procedures and to the burden on local planning authorities, many of which are heavily stretched. That is illustrated by recent figures, which show that fewer than 50 per cent. of planning consents are decided within eight weeks, compared to the target set by the Government of 80 per cent. within that period. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North called it an arthritic process, and there is some merit in describing it in that way.

There can be little doubt that a requirement to give separate consideration to applications to demolish dwelling houses would make matters worse. Nor can I overlook the impact on the planning inspectorate. Last year, more than 28,600 planning appeals were made to the Department, an increase of 27 per cent. over the preceding year. The number of appeals has more than doubled since 1983. This is a problem of success, in that it is no doubt closely related to the buoyancy of the national economy, but that is small comfort to those who have to wait several months before receiving a decision on their appeal.

Therefore, the Government have set out to reduce the burden of planning control where the type or scale of development does not warrant the need to make a planning application. For example, our reform of the Use Classes Order in 1987 has created a greater climate of certainty for commerce and enterprise. We have been prepared to maintain or increase the extent of control, in the interests of the environment and of local amenity, where there is solid evidence of widespread need for revision of controls.

Although the Government's general stance has been to deregulate the planning system, we are ready to increase planning controls where that is justified, but the case for doing so must be based on hard evidence, not mere anecdote.

My hon. Friends may ask what sort of evidence we need. It would be important for any Government to know whether the sort of problems my hon. Friends have described are widespread, or whether they are confined to outer London. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) said that there was plenty of evidence of demolition. I am sure that that is so but we

Next Section

Home Page