House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 1991

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo) : I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : With this it will be convenient to take the following : Government new clause 6-- Demolition of buildings.

Column 458

Government Amendment Nos. 42 to 45, 64 to 67, 54 and 78, 35, 79, 59, 32 to 34, 38 to 41, 46 to 49, 51 to 53, 56 to 58, 81 to 85, 87 to 90, 92 to 94, 36, 50, 55, 60, 37, 100, 102 and 103.

5.15 pm

Mr. Yeo : We have listened carefully to the arguments in the debates on demolition that have taken place in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. We have also taken account of the support for the legislation in the responses to our public consultation paper on demolition last year. We have considered the High Court's decision in January this year, in the case of Cambridge city council v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Milton Park Investment Ltd., which held that the demolition of certain semi -detached houses was development.

Amendments were withdrawn in Standing Committee when my hon. Friend the Minister of State promised consultations within Whitehall and a further statement on Report. We have now concluded that the time is right to introduce selective controls on demolition. In reaching that conclusion, I pay tribute to the arguments adduced by hon. Members, in particular to the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who cannot be here today but has been a vigorous and persuasive supporter of the changes. I believe that it was in his constituency that one half of a semi-detached house was demolished without permission. It was that kind of unacceptable and absurd incident that convinced us of the need to extend planning control to cover demolition.

The amendments may look complicated, but they represent the best way forward. Subsection (1) of the new clause brings the demolition of all building within the meaning of building operations and hence within the definition of development. The new clause also provides a direction-making power to enable the Secretary of State to direct that the demolition of any specified type of building does not involve development. That power will be used to exclude from planning control the demolition of all buildings that are not dwelling houses.

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West) : What will trigger the action that my hon. Friend has just outlined ?

Mr. Yeo : Once the Bill has passed on to the statute book, the Secretary of State will use the direction-making power and issue a direction to that effect. In our judgment, the demolition of non-dwelling houses has, on the whole, not presented the same kind of difficulties as the demolition of dwelling houses. Generally, people do not demolish office blocks or industrial premises unless they already have permission to do something else with the site.

Dr. Godman : While I accept what the Minister says about non- residential buildings, there is often a problem with industrial buildings which might well be listed. In my constituency, Gourock ropeworks is a listed building which is literally falling apart and, for understandable reasons, the local authority might seek to demolish it. The proposed demolition of some industrial buildings can cause considerable controversy in local communities.

Mr. Yeo : Listed buildings are already subject to control ; there is already a restriction on anyone who wants to demolish a listed building. A local authority which wanted to do so would have to undertake the necessary procedures to obtain permission. Anyone who wants to

Column 459

demolish a listed building, whether industrial or any other type, must follow procedures which are already quite restrictive.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I wish to make an innocent inquiry about whether the new provisions will deal with the following practical and recent example. The building next to the former Department of Health and Social Security offices at the Elephant and Castle, which is still used for offices, but not for Ministers' offices, was a listed office building. Apparently, it was of great significance in terms of 1930s architecture, although I did not find it as beautiful as other people did. It was knocked down after it had been identified as important and the request for its listing had been made. I have not had a chance to check, but I believe that listing was imminent. Certainly it was known that it was ready to be listed. Will that sort of building be protected after the changes have been made to this legislation?

Mr. Yeo : Not if the buildings are non-dwelling houses and unlisted. The protection available for listed buildings continues and will be unchanged by the new clause. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that some of the listings that have taken place have been somewhat eccentric. I do not think that the new clause is intended to address the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred--demolition taking place when listing is imminent. That is a separate problem which would need a different solution.

The new clause deals with another problem related to dwelling houses. A detached house in a substantial plot in a suburban location could, at present, be demolished without permission and there could then be an application for planning permission for four or five houses on the same plot, thus producing an increase in the land value. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I am grateful to the Minister and hope that he will address the issues in its widest form. If a formal request for listed building status has been submitted and been considered by the relevant authority, whether local authority or Government, we need proper protection so that people cannot come and knock down a building literally the day before it obtains listed building status. The whole issue of whether it would have gained listed status then becomes theoretical. The legislation should contain the principle to ensure that a developer or anyone else who knocks down a building which may be of important architectural significance --whether residential, commercial or industrial--is penalised pretty hard.

Mr. Yeo : Assuming that the new clause is accepted, any residential building will, in future, be capable of being protected. I acknowledge that a problem may still exist with non-residential buildings. It is not possible for us to deal with that problem during the passage of the Bill, but I recognise that there is, at least potentially, a problem. I shall reflect on that and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West) : Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that some dwelling houses are attached to offices and industrial buildings, particularly in older districts, and perhaps more often in the north than the south--certainly in parts of my constituency. Those buildings are not necessarily in

Column 460

conservation areas and I would not like my hon. Friend's exemptions to allow circumstances in which someone's home could be attached to something one day and next to a gap site the next. Will my hon. Friend look at that aspect of the proposed exemptions to ensure that such a problem will not arise?

Mr. Yeo : My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Before the Secretary of State makes a direction under the direction-making power, I will look at the matter to see whether there is a way to give the same protection to someone who lives in a semi-detached house adjacent to an office as to someone living in a semi-detached house adjacent to a dwelling house. We should examine that point sympathetically.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the situation that arose in Salcombe, Devon, could not happen again under the proposed legislation? In Salcombe, a lovely Victorian villa was on the point of being demolished because a developer had bought the land on which the villa was situated and realised that he could build a block of flats there. But for the fact that the local community got wind of the developer's plans, he could and would have knocked down the villa. Fortunately, the local authority, with the help of the Department of the Environment, managed to extend the conservation area to include the house.

It is not right to have to extend conservation areas to save buildings, as we shall end up with conservation areas all over the place where they should not be. Will my hon. Friend say something about people coming along and knocking down houses overnight which, under the new clause, will not be a criminal offence unless the building is listed or there is a tree on the land on which there is a tree preservation order?

Mr. Yeo : My hon. Friend is such a vigorous champion and exponent of tighter planning controls that I am amazed that anyone west of Bristol should dream of undertaking anything which might approach a breach of planning control. I can assure him that the new clause will deal directly with the circumstances to which he referred. It is intended to tackle precisely that situation.

We shall propose amendments to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 to grant permitted development rights for the demolition of houses in most circumstances. That will reflect the fact that most demolitions are uncontroversial, but it would be possible to control the most damaging cases by excluding the demolition of semi-detached and terraced houses from permitted development rights.

The amendments to the general development order will be subject to public consultation. I cannot say at this stage exactly what those amendments will be, but our aim is to implement the measure as soon as possible. Of course, the consultation process will give us the chance to consider carefully the points that have been made today.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : Can the Minister explain how the measure will be given teeth because, by definition, it is quicker to knock something down than to build it? Does not the case for such control demonstrate the need for criminal penalties if people do not conform to the new planning controls? What penalties will be applied to people who demolish buildings despite the new controls?

Column 461

Mr. Yeo : My hon. Friend may be attempting to introduce into our proceedings a discussion of the principle of criminalisation, with which the amendments and new clauses that have been called do not deal. I can assure my hon. Friend that, if a building or house is demolished in breach of planning control, the local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building as similar as possible to that which was demolished. Such a building must comply with building regulations and the relevant enforcement notice. That power should act as a strong deterrent to the speculative demolition which has caused concern.

I believe that if the owner of a house demolished it on spec, as it were, and then found that he faced a £100,000, £200,000 or £500,000 bill for reconstruction, that would represent a real deterrent, perhaps greater in financial terms than that envisaged by the advocates of criminalisation. The powers that we are now introducing will be an effective deterrent to such a problem which, although real, is not enormously widespread.

As a result of the amendments, it will for the first time be open to planning authorities to use article 4 directions to prevent the demolition of houses where the authorities see a particular risk or in areas that they regard as vulnerable to damage from speculative demolition. Demolition in conservation areas is already subject to control, but there may be other areas in which greater planning control is desirable. While it would not usually be appropriate to control the whole of a district, we should be prepared to consider sympathetically article 4 directions served on particular buildings or streets where there was a case for extending control for more than six months.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : I imagine that article 4 directions are likely to be used on older buildings and those which are, in that sense, of more intrinsic value to the community. I was with the Minister up to the point where he said that any replacement that could be enforced would be required to conform to building regulations. The problem is that many wonderful old buildings, which are perhaps not in conservation areas and are not listed, get some of their charm from the fact that they do not conform to building regulations. What will happen if a replacement that meets that requirement is sufficiently ugly not to be a decent replacement?

Mr. Yeo : My hon. Friend poses a fascinating question, but such detail will properly be dealt with in the consultation process that I mentioned a moment ago. It is not appropriate to use the valuable time of the House to discuss it any more specifically than that. It should be possible for common sense to prevail. The local authority will be able to enforce the construction of a replacement building. It must be as similar as possible to the demolished building, but it must comply with building regulations. As my hon. Friend said, it is possible that, in some cases, those objectives may be incompatible, but there is a common-sense solution. Above all, the purpose of the measure is to provide a deterrent to people who demolish buildings on spec. It will be an effective deterrent and I should be surprised if there were many instances such as those to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : I am concerned that the Minister is a little too sanguine in his reply. In some areas. especially in the west country, where land values are high and property is extremely valuable, fly -by-night merchants

Column 462

and cowboys are prepared to indulge in speculative demolition. What the Minister says about the local authority being a substantial deterrent is not the case, especially when enforcement officers are hard pressed. My constituency has the fifth or sixth highest volume of planning applications in the country. The officers cannot get around all the sites to enforce the regulations. Because of the high land values, there is a great incentive--greater than the deterrent, I fear--to indulge in such practices which the Minister is apparently seeking to shrug off. The only solution is not a fanciful deterrent, but criminalisation.

Mr. Yeo : I am tempted to go with the debate on criminalisation which was won comprehensively by the Government, who dispatched the advocates of criminalisation in all directions with some help from the Opposition. Although I am tempted to rehearse the arguments again, my hon. Friend is missing the point. Of course there is a significant temptation for people to indulge in what we could call speculative demolition. At present, there is everything to be gained and nothing much to be lost from creating a vacant site where there was previously a dwelling, and there is probably a good chance of getting planning permission for something that might be more valuable.

In the future, people will still have to get planning permission but, once they have made their application, it will be apparent to the local authority--whether its enforcement officers are hard pressed or not--that a breach of planning control has taken place and the speculative demolisher will face an enourmous bill to reconstruct the dwelling that was previously on that site. Therefore, when the new clause has been accepted, the problems will not be nearly so serious as some of my hon. Friends seem to fear.

Mr. Steen : I represent about a third of Torbay so I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is talking about. Is the Minister saying that under the new clause, if a developer knocked down a house he could be asked to rebuild it, but that he could then knock it down, having obtained planning permission to build something else?

Mr. Yeo : It would certainly be a step-by-step process. My hon. Friend is right to say that if someone knocks down a house without the necessary planning permission, the local authority has the power to make him reconstruct that house at great expense. If he subsequently wishes to apply for planning permission to do something else on that site, he would be free to do so, as anyone owning land or a building is free to do.

The amendments allow local planning authorities to control the worst excesses of demolition of dwelling houses without imposing any extra demand, in the majority of cases, on the developer or the local planning authorities. New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 64 to 67, Nos. 78 and 79, Nos. 81 to 85, Nos. 87 to 90, Nos. 92 to 94, No. 100, and Nos. 102 and 103 make similar provisions for Scotland by amending section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and by making equivalent consequential provisions. I commend the new clause to the House.

Column 463

5.30 pm

Sir Anthony Durant : I represent in the House the National Federation of Demolition Contractors. It may help the House if another point of view is expressed. I must make it clear that the federation is a responsible body. It has high training standards and believes in conforming to the law. It accepts that there are demolition men who do not conform to the federation's high standards on training, on working with the unions and on doing all the right things. It is accepted that there are some cowboys. In general, the federation is not against the proposals, although it is concerned about them.

One concern is that there may be delay. A building may be ready for demolition, but it could be a long and drawn-out process before the demolition contractor gets permission to demolish. The federation is concerned about that because with the downturn in the economy, especially in the south, there is a lack of work.

The federation has asked me to raise the issue of dangerous buildings, which has already been touched on by Opposition Members. Sometimes a building is in such a bad state that the only safe thing to do is to demolish it. Is such a demolition badly affected by the new clause and amendments? The federation would like to know the Minister's views.

The federation is not against the thrust of the Bill and it understands that it has to conform to the law. Members of the federation would much prefer to work on a site when demolition has already been approved than be stopped half way through. They are not keen for such a situation to arise. The federation behaves in a responsible manner, and its only anxieties concern delay and dangerous buildings. I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Peter Thurnham : (Bolton, North-East) : I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a particular constituency problem. I hope that he will advise me whether the new clause and amendments will be helpful in this case, which is different from those raised in the debate so far. The residents would like demolition to occur, but the developer of the site is refusing to carry out demolition. It is a long-standing problem. The Harwood shopping precinct, which was built 25 years ago, has now been turned into a ghetto and the residents want it demolished, but the owner, who has planning permission to redevelop the site, has failed to do so and is dragging his feet. The council has failed to force him to do so and everyone is concerned. I tabled new clause 4 to help solve the problem, but it has not been selected. Will the new clause or amendments help, or are there sufficient powers in existence to enable the council to take action against the developer and to force him to redevelop, or to enable the council compulsorily to purchase the site and sell it to another developer who will do so?

I received a letter today from Mrs. Sheila Turner, a constituent who lives near the precinct. She writes :

"I am extremely concerned at the state of the precinct and the fact that Mr. Horrocks"--

the developer concerned--

"is thumbing his nose at the people of Harwood and being allowed to get away with it."

The problem has persisted since 1984 and all the residents in the area are thoroughly fed up.

Column 464

Mrs. Turner continues :

"Can nothing be done to force him to demolish the buildings? I moved here 30 years ago into a house built by Mr. Horrocks' firm on New Heys Way. He was a familiar figure, striding along New Heys Way, watching his investment grow. Now that he has allowed the precinct to deteriorate to such an extent that it would not be out of place in an inner city deprived area (complete with yobs) he is constantly unavailable' like some prima donna.

I have written to Mr. Horrocks challenging him to take his grandchildren on a walk through the crumbling, disgusting, obscene grafitti daubed wreck and I hope he will feel the shame and embarrassment that the Harwood residents feel every day It is not a very happy situation for Harwood residents."

Mrs. Turner has written to the council about the matter. The council has been absolutely feeble and pathetic. It has said that it is unable to do anything and it has tried to shift the blame on to the Government. The council said :

"Central Government's view would be that the site is in private ownership and its existing planning permissions have been granted and it is up to the private sector, and Mr. Horrocks in particular, to achieve the necessary re -development."

The residents feel that the council should act. Are the new clause and amendments relevant to the problem, or does section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 give the council sufficient power to act now compulsorily to acquire the land? Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether the spirit and principle of the 1990 Act give the council the scope to exercise power of acquisition in a way that harnesses the resources and skills of a private developer in putting the site to effective use?

I have already shown my hon. Friend a cutting from the Bolton Evening News this week in which Mr. Earp, of Tonge Moor road, Bolton, says that I am the only person who is trying to do anything about the problem. Does the council have enough power to act? Does my hon. Friend feel that it should act? My hon. Friend is aware that all this week an enormous court case has gone on in the Strand, which was reported in the Bolton Evening News this week. Bolton council is in trouble for failing to enforce its powers with regard to a covenant. The residents want Barratt to demolish 10 houses that were built on land in contravention of a covenant that stated that there should be no building.

Mr. Allason : Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability and power of a local authority to act on enforcement notices is the key to all these matters? At present, local authorities, after the experience on Sunday trading, are reluctant to get involved in lengthy court proceedings which are enormously expensive and which will add an enormous burden to community charge or council taxpayers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution is not necessarily to provide powers for local authorities but to ensure that local authorities are willing to enforce the powers that they already have?

Mr. Thurnham : Indeed. It is no good for councillors to let themselves be walked over by developers. In some cases, there may be some political connotations. Councils may refuse to do their duty in certain areas because, for political reasons, they think that it may be wise to let the residents become unhappy. I am concerned about Bolton council's feebleness in such cases. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether there are

Column 465

sufficient powers already or whether there is a need for further legislation. If there are sufficient powers, why cannot the council use them?

Mr. Steen : It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Government on moving some way towards meeting the robust arguments that I and other hon. Friends put in Committee, where I was privileged to serve. The Government wanted the Bill to complete its Committee stage in a day and to be seen as a little tidying-up measure. They wanted it then to be nodded through the House on the day of the Monmouth by-election. The Government chose a good day on which there might be as few hon. Members present as possible. However, in Committee the Government realised that the Bill was important, and that Conservative and Opposition Members saw it as the greatest opportunity for 20 years to put right some of the planning injustices. Unfortunately, the Government tried to make it a tidy Bill and they have been resistant to the idea of extending the Bill to deal with other injustices.

In Committee, I raised on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) the question of demolition. I want to pay tribute to the Government for listening to Conservative Members and for recognising that something needed to be done. I hope that there will be other moves this evening from the Government. I hope that they will be prepared to extend the Bill from being a tidy little measure into a more serious and important Bill which will put right some of the injustices of the planning system.

We have tried to make it more difficult for certain categories of building to be demolished. I am fearful that local authorities could use the Bill as an opportunity to slow down the planning process. I am concerned that, if a building is to be demolished, the developers should not have the additional cost of delay, which is one of the problems of our planning system. I am told that in France and Germany proper compensation is paid and things get done as a result. I hope that that is one problem which the Bill will redress.

My hon. Friend the Minister could also usefully say something about the consultation process. Will that last for months, or will it be completed by the end of July, so that by September or October the demolition clause will be in place?

Mr. Moate : Alas, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just said. This is a serious and important Bill and the Government should be warmly congratulated on a number of its provisions, including new clause 2. I congratulate them on having endeavoured to close a gap that has caused much concern over the years. It is right that demolition should be brought within the scope of planning control. I hope that we do not do any damage to the legitimate interests represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir T. Durant).

I fear that once again we are giving duties to local planning authorities without giving them adequate powers of enforcement. We are raising expectations while still allowing those who abuse the law the opportunity to continue doing so. That point follows one dealt with in a

Column 466

number of interventions to which my hon. Friend courteously responded but with which he did not deal satisfactorily.

The law-abiding citizen has seldom posed a problem. In future, the law- abiding citizen will know that he has to obtain planning permission in order to demolish a dwelling house and the planning authority will have the power of enforcement. But the non-law-abiding citizen will pose a problem. If a house on a large site is demolished without planning permission--to quote the classic example of a large decaying villa on a large site--the person responsible could be required to rebuild it. But the practical consequence is that it is not logical to rebuild a large villa on such a site. In the end, logic will prevail and the planning authority will tell the cowboy that it obviously makes sense to put up a number of smaller homes on that site. In the end, the spec developer will win.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that even where houses have been built without planning permission--we can all think of such examples--there are few instances where such unlawful buildings are demolished because in the end it would be illogical to do so. Therefore, unfortunately, in such cases the developer will always win.

I accept that, as has been said, that leads back to

criminalisation. The only way in which the measure can be given teeth is to have some criminal penalties. I suspect that that has been argued through. There are strong arguments for and against that, but at some stage specific penalties have to be imposed to deal with someone who wantonly and flagrantly disobeys planning laws. I welcome the control over demolition, but it is a fairly toothless proposal which will present many planning authorities with problems, not solutions.

Mr. Allason : My concern about new clause 2 is that it does not cover the difficulties experienced in the south-west. A few moments ago I mentioned high property values. South Devon has experienced numerous examples of appalling abuses of planning regulations. In my constituency there is a major controversy relating to the improvement or development, call it what one will, of the Cockington valley preservation area. On the fringes of that site there has been a long battle over where the boundaries are to be drawn. We have had classic examples of a footpath going straight through the living room of a house that has never been occupied because a mistake was made in drawing the boundaries. In no case, as far as I am aware, has an order been made for the demolition of such properties, which have been put up quickly by speculative builders. Often, when there is a threat of enforcement, the dwelling will be occupied, probably more quickly than usual, in order to get through another loophole. 5.45 pm

I am sure that a substantial proportion of hon. Members' mail is dominated by planning issues which are not our direct responsibility. However, we should be prepared to shoulder the burden of responsibility for planning regulations for the next 20 years. The past 20 years have identified numerous loopholes that have been exploited by the unscrupulous. We have an opportunity this evening to close some of those loopholes.

A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned giving those responsibilities to local authorities without giving them the power of enforcement. The House has a tendency to give

Column 467

important responsibilities to local authorities without contemplating the costs involved or providing them with the resources necessary. I have already mentioned the cost of enforcement, but there are insufficient officers in the planning departments, certainly in Torbay, rigorously to enforce the existing regulations. Numerous other flaws have been exploited over the years. My great concern has always been development on green field sites, but in my constituency there are very few green field sites left because unscrupulous developers have concreted over every blade of grass around.

Enforcement is the key. The Minister has strong faith in local authorities' ability to enforce demolition orders where there has been improper development, but can he cite cases where such enforcement orders have been enforced? In my recollection, there have been few and invariably they have involved lengthy legal proceedings. At the end of the day the developer has only rarely been required to demolish a property that has been put up in contravention of the regulations.

I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this evening that he is not just pushing a Bill through the House of Commons ; he will be affecting the lives of millions of people throughout Britain who will have to live with this legislation for many years to come. There is a tendancy known as NIMBY --not in my back yard. We have an opportunity now to legislate for the future in order to ensure that some of the loopholes that have been so blatently exploited in the past are finally closed.

I beg my hon. Friend to consider carefully what I have said. When the moment comes for him to retire to south Devon where I will welcome him as my constituent, he will not want unscrupulous developers building close to his retirement home.

Mr. Wilshire : I imagine that in Committee it became clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am not an enthusiast for extending the powers of planning committees over the lives of individuals. I have said on a number of occasions that I have reservations about the wisdom of bringing demolition within the remit of planning control, and I still do.

I say that against the background of my constituency being one of many with the sorts of problems that were discussed in Committee and which have been mentioned again today. The particular problem that my constituency seems to share with a number of others is the enthusiastic speculative developer who knocks down a large house and then negotiates on density afterwards. I am well aware of the consequences that that can have. Therefore, although I have reservations about the proposed approach, I keep an open mind. I have throughout been against a blanket requirement, in all circumstances, for any demolition to be subject to planning permission. The suggested change to the general development order as a means of ensuring that blanket prohibition is not the order of the day offers a very neat solution, and one that commends itself to me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not succumb to the temptation to allow many councils to withdraw permitted development rights--or in this case, permitted demolition rights- -across large swathes of a local authority's area. That would be to fly in the face of the measure, which is meant to give protection where it is needed without taking away individual rights.

Column 468

Mention has been made of the possible slowing down in the planning process that could occur. In Committee, I commended to my hon. Friend the Minister a change in the law that would make a deemed approval the order of the day if, after 12 weeks, a decision had not been taken. In the case of an application to demolish, it would not be unreasonable to expect any planning authority, under all circumstances, to reach a decision within that period of time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether a deemed approval could be a way of avoiding delay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred to dangerous buildings. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it crystal clear to planning authorities, inspectors, and courts if necessary, that the requirement to safeguard public safety would be adequate justification for not necessarily waiting for a decision in the case of a building that was structurally dangerous.

Replying to my intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister said that a case could be made for leaving certain details to the common sense of the people involved. I implore him not to place too much store by common sense in the planning process. I chaired a planning committee for five years, and my experience of planning officers is that, often, they are not noted for displaying common sense in their approach to such issues--and I have yet to meet a developer who displays common sense when profit is dangled before him. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tie up all the details, to make it clear what is meant by the provision and by the general development order. Despite my reservations, I believe that the overall solution is neat, and I shall take great pleasure in supporting it.

Dr. Godman : In speaking in support of new clause 6, I make no apology for touching briefly on a constituency matter. If one drives into my constituency from the east, along the River Clyde, one first sees the remarkably conserved Newark castle. Its superb condition is a tribute to successive administrations at the Scottish Office, Labour and Conservative, and to others involved in the conservation of Scotland's ancient buildings. Alongside that landmark, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, is the busy, bustling little Ferguson shipyard.

The juxtaposition of that ancient castle and the shipyard is easy on the eye. However, just 50 or 80 yards further into my constituency is the most appalling, squalid, derelict and decaying cluster of buildings, which include the Gourock road works.

I acknowledge that that site represents a fine example of 19th century Scottish industrial architecture, and that alongside it are two Georgian houses. In an earlier intervention, the Minister pointed out that if those properties are listed buildings, action can be taken to protect them. However, that is an extremely long-winded process, and I regret that new clause 6 will be unable to deal with the circumstances in which my constituents find themselves. Port Glasgow is ravaged by high unemployment. It is seeking to persuade industrialists, through the Locate in Scotland Bureau, to locate their operations there. However, if Japanese, American or Scandinavian business men drive into Port Glasgow, after they have been greeted by the agreeable vista of Newark castle they will be confronted by the Gourock road works. If that site and the

Column 469

buildings alongside it can be conserved, that should be done, but it is unfair to place on the people of Port Glasgow the burden of living with that distressing squalor. New clause 6 will not allow Inverclyde district council to deal with that problem expeditiously. I mentioned that the buildings concerned might be conserved rather than abolished. The Scottish Office published a fine book on old buildings, which has a foreword by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Secretary of State for Transport, in which he argued the case for conservation. However, despite the commitment that I have to preserving Scotland's historical architecture, both industrial and aristocratic, I believe that the moment has arrived for decisive action in respect of the appalling squalor of the Gourock road works and the adjoining buildings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware tharepresentatives of his district council met me some time ago for a detailed discussion of the case to which he refers, and to ascertain whether the serving of a repairs notice on the property owner in question would be a good way forward. I undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a written account of the situation to date. We all share his interest in finding a way forward, bearing in mind the importance to industry and to the local community of a favourable decision being reached.

Dr. Godman : I am deeply grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for displaying his characteristic courtesy in that intervention. The councillors and officials who met him told me that he gave their case a fair-minded and courteous hearing, and I am pleased to learn of his continuing concern. The situation that I have described is a blight on the residents of Port Glasgow and could deter people from setting up homes and industries on the lower Clyde. There is no waterway in the whole of the United Kingdom more beautiful than the firth of Clyde. It is a disgrace, and a continuing scandal, that such squalor should be allowed to remain literally on its banks. I repeat my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for his gracious intervention, and I repeat that something must be done in the near future about the situation of which I have spoken.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : The best that I can say is that the Opposition give the new clause a low-key welcome. Let me add, however, that I greatly enjoy these debates ; I am always impressed by the way in which right-wing Members from the south of England, confronted by the developers, suddenly abandon their commitment to Thatcherism and move so far to the left that they bypass democratic socialism and cross straight into authoritarian eastern European communism--of the old style, that is. They want to criminalise all the developers. Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) want to create a criminal offence--or perhaps that does not apply to the hon. Member for Spelthorne.

Mr. Wilshire : I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting himself before I had a chance to correct him. I am not in favour of criminalisation.

Column 470

6 pm

Mr. Soley : I know that this does not relate to the substance of the debate, but it is important. I think that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) inclined towards the idea of criminalisation. It is not the answer ; the answer is enforcement. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned this.

Criminalisation is not the answer for three reasons. First, it does not deter ; secondly, it is not necessarily any quicker ; thirdly, it is not a particularly effective method. Enforcement, however, means that the developer must put right what he has done wrong, and it is therefore more effective. The distinction is important, although I do not want us to engage in the "criminalisation" debate all over again. I understand the force of the argument about irreversible development ; indeed, I have put that argument myself. In such circumstances, a developer would be unable to put right what had been done wrong. In other circumstances, however, the most effective deterrent will be the power of enforcement. It is criticisms of that kind that get the Government into difficulties with their Back Benchers when new clauses such as this are being debated.

Another problem is the way in which the Government legislate. I agree that something must be done about demolition, and that it must be covered by the planning rules. The Government, however, tend to favour secondary legislation, thus placing the Minister in a difficult position. He cannot answer his Back Benchers who present him with various types of case--not just specific cases--because the legislation is not spelt out in the detail that would enable us to know exactly what the law is. If I were asked to identify the main criticism of the Government's planning machinery, I would cite the lack of certainty.

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : Throughout the relevant period, the law has been represented by the Town and Country Planning Act 1971--until the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I am at a loss to know what changes in the law the hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. Soley : I am referring generally to the planning legislation introduced by the present Government. When legislating on planning and the issues surrounding it, they have tended to give the Secretary of State power to intervene. They have done the same in regard to affordable housing. It is a secondary power, rather than a clear power.

I should place on record my admiration for the courage of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). Surrounded by colleagues all of whom were berating the demolition industry, the hon. Gentleman simply stood up and said, "I represent, and speak for, the demolition industry." That must have been rather like walking into St. Paul's cathedral and saying, "I speak for Satan"--or, worse still, walking into St. Paul's cathedral without paying the entry fee, which I suspect is now an even worse crime.

There is a problem for the demolition industry ; again, the problem is one of certainty. The industry has not consulted me, but I would guess that its representatives have complained to the hon. Member for Reading, West that they do not know where they stand. That is the problem which confronts the Minister. In my view, the legislation should have spelt matters out more clearly ; the

Column 471

Government have relied less on guidance and secondary legislation. That would have introduced a little more certainty into the planning system, benefiting both local authority planners, who must make the decisions, and the demolition industry itself.

Having said that, I should add that I have no doubt that the measure represents a necessary part of the Bill in its present form. Although I do not like this type of legislation, I support its implications and the direction in which it is aimed.

Next Section

Home Page