Previous Section Home Page

Column 407

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Patchett, Terry

Pike, Peter L.

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Richardson, Jo

Robertson, George

Robinson, Geoffrey

Rogers, Allan

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Rowlands, Ted

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Clare

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Soley, Clive

Speller, Tony

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Strang, Gavin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wallace, James

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wray, Jimmy

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2

Listed buildings conservation areas and hazardous substances

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes) : I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 89, line 13 at end insert

In section 76(1) of that Act after "direct", there is inserted "(whether the building is occupied or not)" and after "section 54" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (4).".'. The amendment is entirely concerned with the operation of conservation areas. It corrects an anomaly in present legislation. If one owns a property in a conservation area, one must have planning permission to alter the appearance of the building. One cannot proceed without that planning permission. Similarly, a local authority can take action against a landlord if he transgresses the terms of a conservation area. However, there is nothing in law to cover an owner- occupier if his property is allowed to go to rack and ruin.

It may be argued that that should be left to the individual. In that case, we should not have conservation areas. If we have conservation areas, their terms must be applied universally. At the moment that is not the case.

I could show my hon. Friend the Minister examples of that not far from the House. It is a scandal and gives great offence to people who try to comply with the terms of the conservation area and keep their properties in good order and in accordance with the terms laid down for the area. Either the local authorities or English Heritage must have powers to proceed in those cases. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Mr. Yeo : Section 76 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that section 54 of the Act, which deals with urgent works to preserve unoccupied listed buildings, shall apply to a building in a conservation area as it applies to listed buildings if it appears to him that the preservation of that building is important for maintaining the character or appearance of the conservation area. Amendment No. 61 would allow the Secretary of State to make a direction on an occupied building. It would ensure that, if a direction is made under section 76 on an

Column 408

occupied building in a conservation area, the local authority could then carry out urgent works on any part of that building, after giving the owner the requisite seven days' notice of its intention. The existing section 54 provides that, if a building is occupied, works may be carried out only to those parts which are not in use. Section 76 empowers the Secretary of State to make a direction that the powers in section 54, to carry out urgent works to a listed building, shall apply to a specified unlisted building in a conservation area. Such a direction does not require the local authority to carry out the works, but it means that it can do so if it wishes. The effect of the amendment would be that, following a direction by the Secretary of State, the powers available to the local authority for dealing with a particular unlisted building in poor repair would be wider than the powers available to the same local authority for dealing with a listed building. I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend intends in his amendment. More importantly, the powers in section 54 of the Act are deliberately restricted to unoccupied buildings or, in the case of partially occupied buildings, to those parts which are not in use. These powers are principally aimed at the preservation of listed buildings, and they give local authorities powers to carry out works which appear to them to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a building after giving not less than seven days, notice of the intention to carry out the works. This is potentially a draconian power, and the Government have taken the view that it should not be available in the case of occupied buildings, for obvious reasons related to the invasion of privacy. We have looked into this question from time to time, but the furthest we have been prepared to go is to provide for urgent works to be carried out on the unused parts of partially occupied buildings, and that remains our position. In the light of that--

Mr. Benyon : Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if such a building is occupied, there is nothing that any authority can do about its appalling state of repair? In such circumstances, is he really happy about the fact that two houses might be completely derelict in a marvellous street of historic houses in an area of great historical and conservation importance?

Mr. Yeo : No, I cannot say that I am happy--no one would be happy about that--but we must balance our real anxiety about the possible decay of buildings in those circumstances with the attendant risks of giving local authorities powers to enter and occupy buildings regardless of the wishes of the occupant. That is a significant consideration.

As I have said, we have gone as far as giving local authorities the power to deal with the unoccupied portions of partially occupied buildings. There are real reasons for hesitating before giving local authorities the power to move into someone's house to carry out works while that person is living there, regardless of how urgently those works may be needed. That is why the Government cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Benyon : I am not happy about that, but there is obviously no point in pressing my amendment. However, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think further about this matter, because the position will not get any better ; it will only get worse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Column 409

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8

Listed buildings, conservation areas and hazardous

substances--Scotland--

Amendments made : No. 174, in page 140, line 29, after both' insert

Column 410

; and in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'. No. 175, in page 143, line 45, at end insert

; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'

No. 176, in page 145, line 25, at end insert

; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Column 411

Schedule 3

Development Plans

Mr. Steen : I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 98, line 48, at end insert--

(c) population forecasts issued by central government and by independent agencies, as well as district and county population growth forecasts in relation to specific local areas, and the impact of these forecasts on household formation.'.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 136, in page 104, line 12, at end insert

(9) (c) to the likely resources available ;

(d) to the capacity of existing facilities to service the increased population resulting from new residential development, and where existing facilities are not deemed to be adequate to meet increased needs, no further residential development shall be permitted unless the capital works required to service any new residential development have been or will be provided'.

Mr. Steen : The amendment was tabled by several of my hon. Friends. I wish to deal with both amendments Nos. 133 and 136. Amendment No. 133 is about population forecasts. The amendment proposes to add to paragraph 16 of schedule 3, under the heading "Structure and local plans", a provision whereby population forecasts will be included, discussed and considered. The reason for that is simple.

The Department of the Environment produces estimates of future household formations which are handed down to the county councils. In theory the estimates can be challenged, but in practice they tend to be accepted as tablets of stone. The county councils allocate a certain number of households to each of the district, town or borough local authorities, which are obliged to find room for the new buildings.

A group of people in Holborn deal with population statistics. There are about 2,000 people there, but about six of them specifically deal with household formations, which are not the same as houses. They pass the information over to a group of civil servants in the Department of the Environment. I do not know how many dozens of civil servants in the Department analyse and forecast household formations.

The figures are then massaged and sent down like darts to the county councils. Councils are told that they must provide in their structure plan for so many households in their area. For example, my county council may be asked to provide for 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 households. That request is based on figures which emanate from Holborn and go on to the Department of the Environment. Devon or any other county council receives the figures. Although technically it can challenge them, it has no machinery to do so. How can the council challenge figures which suddenly arrive on its desk? The council then has to cut up the figures and distribute them around the district councils. It is similar to bidding. The county council says to each council, "How many can you manage?" It has to share the household formation figures around the councils. The councils then set about their local plans, which are the strategy for the area for the next five years. They have to include the number of households that the council has been told by the county council, the county council has been told by the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Environment has been told by the Holborn statisticians is required in that area.

Column 412

The trouble is that the household formation figures are estimates. They are simply computerised figures and they are not always correct. An analysis of the Department of the Environment's 1985 -based household projections shows how the rate of household formation is expected to decline sharply in every county in the country. For example, 32 per cent. fewer households will be formed in Devon in the last five years of the 1990s than were formed in the first five years of the 1980s. Overall there is a 45 per cent. drop in household formations throughout Great Britain.

Figures are handed down like tablets of stone from the Department of the Environment to the county councils and local councils draw up their local plans on the basis of them. The figures have dropped by 45 per cent. We are still building houses on the basis of those false projections. It is rather like a train running at 125 mph--it takes a few miles to stop. We are continuing to build houses on an inaccurate premise which was produced by computer.

Amendment No. 133 provides no more than a means whereby the estimates of household formation can be considered during the consultation period of the local plans, so that they can be revised in the light of local need and local land use. The importance of the amendment is not just to allow the national figures to be considered but to introduce local needs and local land use.

10.30 pm

We know that more houses will be needed during the coming decade to provide for new households, but new homes do not necessarily mean new housebuilding on green-field sites. For example, we do not need to release more and more land to satisfy the cry for new homes. The County Planning Officers Society recent figures show a national picture of 23 per cent. more land identified for housing development than is required by the structure plan building rates during the next five years. In the hard-pressed south-east an astonishing 58 per cent. more land has been identified for housing development than is required. The Government forecast that 550,000 new households will be required in the south-east alone by the turn of the century, yet the County Planning Officers Society says that 58 per cent. more land is earmarked for housing in the south-east than is required. As I have bored hon. Members with this on many occasions, they will know that approximately 180,000 acres of public land is lying vacant, derelict, dormant, underused or underutilised. About 80,000 acres of it is on the Government land register, but that has not been brought up to date for nearly two years. Therefore, we do not really know how many acres of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land there is in public ownership. All that we know is that there are more than 100,000 acres of public vacant land, probably near 180,000, and probably nearer 300,000 if one includes the private sector as well. Since it is perfectly good building land, why do we have to build on green-field sites and allocate 58 per cent. more land in the the south-east for building?

Not only have we got surplus land, we have also got some 99,200 local authority houses and flats lying empty, of which 31,000 are in the Government sector. Those buildings should be repaired and used before we build more houses on green-field sites which do not need to be built on.

Column 413

Amendment No. 133 suggests that, when local plans are being drawn up by district and borough councils, regard should be had for the local need and what the local people have to say.

I cannot impress too strongly on the House even at this hour just how serious the matter is. If we get our population forecasts wrong we will end up building the wrong number of households in the wrong places and we will take more and more land which we do not need to take to build houses that do not need to be built.

Amendment No. 136 deals with what should be included in local plans. Under the Bill, such plans will be statutorily required in every part of the country. I welcome that first-rate initiative by the Government. I am glad to say that South Hams was one of the first local authorities to operate local plans, even before they were required by law.

The amendment is necessary because good planning practice should ensure a link between new housing development and physical and social infrastructure. That link should be set out clearly in the local plan.

Good planning practice, as operated by a responsible local authority, should make sure that the requisite infrastructure to service new development is in place. That has sometimes been lacking in the past ; as a result, development has sometimes outstripped local infrastructural facilities.

Even South Hams was overwhelmed by housing development during the past decade. It swamped the existing infrastructure. About 48,000 houses were built in Devon between 1981 and 1991, and I am afraid that the infrastructure could not keep pace with the number of new households that resulted.

A lack of school places was the immediate result. Rapid population growth consequent on large housing development in one area meant that the county council had to ask the Government for a large basic needs allocation in its annual capital guidelines, so that new schools could be built. However, when school construction is slow, or the population increases faster than predicted, the education authority has to do what it can. In Stokeford, near Ivybridge, the education authority had to provide eight temporary classrooms to house the overflow from the eight permanent ones already built.

In the whole of Devon, there are 1,456 temporary classrooms housing some 30 per cent. of the total school population. Seventy per cent. of primary and secondary schools have one or more temporary classrooms. [Interruption.] I cannot be blamed for the fact that the debate on this amendment came so late at night. Since I speak for a great number of shire county Members who have been kind enough to turn up tonight, it would be wrong of me to read the note that the Whip has just handed me, would it not, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Hon. Members are perfectly in order if they read from briefs handed to them.

Mr. Steen : That is just what I was doing, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I will not read notes handed to me by colleagues.

It is wrong to go on building more and more houses and allowing more and more people to move into an area without providing the infrastructure to allow them to enjoy the homes into which they have moved. It is wrong

Column 414

to allow them to move into homes if the electricity supply is inadequate and the lights keep going out. It is even worse if the sewerage systems cannot cope. In South Milton, the sewage was backing up into the system, because the sewerage authority could not cope with the volume of houses that it was required to service. That is why infrastructure must keep pace with new development. We should not allow new houses to be built unless we provide adequate police cover, school places, water, electricity and gas.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deplorable state of affairs that he describes really exists in Tory South Hams?

Mr. Steen : It certainly exists in a village in South Hams ; also in Dartmouth the sewerage system is so appalling that a total embargo has been imposed on new house building. The same has happened in Ivybridge, one of the fastest-growing towns in Devon. Things should never have reached that stage.

The local plans give no consideration to infrastructure. There is nothing to stop a developer from continuing to build houses, provided that the local plan allows him to do so. According to my planning officer, once the provision is in the local plan the pace of development cannot be slowed down, regardless of good planning practice.

The amendment merely proposes that, before housing developments proceed, the infrastructure must be either in place or readily available. Nothing is more harmful to constituents than to move into new housing developments in good Conservative shire counties and then to be without the basic facilities that they deserve.

I think that I have made my point. No one can doubt the importance of the amendments. I ask the Government to consider ways in which they might reassure Conservative Members who are concerned about the speed of housing development--as opposed to housing development itself--and the inadequacy of the population forecasts, which allow more houses to be built than are needed. Once the houses are built, the people who live in them will need an adequate infrastructure if they are to enjoy their new homes.

Sir George Young : My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has raised two points : one concerns population forecasts, the other infrastructure. I note that many of my hon. Friends have appended their names to the amendments, and I understand the concern that is felt throughout the House about both subjects. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend and others, however, that the present system can cope with their anxieties.

My hon. Friend said that the Department massaged the figures. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that we were not engaged in the pursuit of truth ; we have no interest in getting the forecasts wrong, and producing assessments that are higher or lower than what proves to be the case. We take population figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and convert them into household forecasts, using the best techniques available. Having engaged in broad consultation, we then convert those into indications, rather than targets, for the purposes of the structure plan.

My hon. Friend suggested that the forecasts were handed down like tablets of stone. That is not true ; they are an indication, which is passed down to local authorities. The authorities are entitled to look at local

Column 415

factors--such as information about household formation--and, having taken those factors into account, to tell the Department that its figure is too high or too low. It simply is not true to say that we impose rigid targets on authorities, defying any evidence that they may have about local circumstances. That would be bad planning, bad politics and bad economics. We have advised the local planning authorities to take account of population projections and other forecasts, apart from our own, when they draw up their structure plans. There is an important degree of flexibility in the system, and there is no question of my Department's imposing unrealistic targets.

Of course the Government have the responsibility to make sure that, when we plan ahead, the sum total of provision made in the various structure plans bears some resemblance to the population growth and household growth. It would be irresponsible of an Administration not to do that, but we do it in a flexible and responsive way, not in the rather dictatorial way that my hon. Friend erroneously implied. 10.45 pm

I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks on infrastructure. It is certainly the case that inadequate infrastructure is a material consideration that can be used for turning down planning permission for a new development. It would be wrong to permit a new development when there was no chance of, for example, a necessary new road being completed when the development became ready for occupation. The whole point of planning is that the infrastructure and the development move within the same timescale. If my hon. Friend looks at the environment White Paper, he will see that the object of the planning system is

"to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest, and to ensure that service facilities such as roads, schools and sewers are built where they are needed."

Planning policy guidance note No. 12 deals with my hon. Friend's anxiety. It says :

"Phasing of development over the period of one plan may be justified by considerations relating to infrastructure or the adequacy of other services, which may indicate that a particular area cannot be released for development until a particular stage in the plan period."

My hon. Friend asked me to reflect again on what he has said to see whether we can give fresh guidance. We are looking at planning policy guidance note No. 3, and I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. I shall see whether guidance needs strengthening.

Mr. Steen : I am reassured by what my hon. Friend says, except that there are 1,456 temporary classrooms, housing some 30 per cent. of Devon's school population, and that is caused solely by the housing development outstripping resources for the infrastructure.

Sir George Young : I have explained that if a local authority got a planning application for a housing estate and was not satisfied that there would be a school to cope with the children, that would be a material consideration and it could use that as an argument for turning down the planning application for the houses. The system allows a response to my hon. Friend's point.

Next Section

  Home Page