| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.45 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam): I join the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in his tributes to the people he mentioned. I know that he is a modest person, but if he will permit me, I should like to pay tribute to him. He rules our proceedings in Committee in a fair and frank manner. I do not intend, however, to follow his remarks. I want to travel a different route, but I hope that we reach the same destination.
When a witness mentioned forecasting future housing need while, as a member of the Environment Committee, I was taking evidence on housing need one day, my memory flashed back to many years ago to when I was but a mere house building contractor. Later on, I remembered a time years ago when I was trying to complete a form--I think that it was from the Government--on forecasting how many houses I would build in that quarter, bearing in mind mortgages, overdraft, land availability and, if they were ever built, whether they would sell in the prevailing economic climate. Oh yes, I remember the Labour Government well. All had to be taken into consideration. In addition, I think that there were penalties if the form was not returned on time. Furthermore, a check had to be made on the previous form that I had completed. It was a time-consuming crystal-ball job, which was not very scientific bearing in mind the fact that there were no computers, spreadsheets and all of today's tools of the trade.
This was a time when bricks had to be unloaded by hand and were not delivered on pallets, when concrete and mortar were mixed by hand and not delivered on site, and when plastic drainage pipes were in their infancy. Window frames were timber and eaves, gutters and rainwater pipes had just started changing from timber and cast iron to plastic. That was only 25 years ago.
Around that time, municipal housing gave way to a new style of accommodation. The traditional housing, which my right hon. Friend the Minister refers to as classic-style dwellings, was terrace blocks. Four blocks, six blocks and eight blocks, as they were called, were being replaced by high-rise, high-density blocks. The life expectancy of such dwellings, which wasted a vast amount of communal land around them, was limited. I watched many being built, and lived to see many demolished.
In Leeds, a most famous block of flats--Quarryhill flats--which was reputed to be the largest in Europe, had a built-in waste disposal system. If my memory serves me correctly, those flats were demolished because the cost of
replacing the waste disposal system and putting the flats back into good repair was too great. Even then, municipal authorities had to outdo others and build even bigger and better blocks than other towns. Such rivalry continues today.
I recollect a light rail system being built in Manchester, and Sheffield following with its own system. The building of Supertram in Sheffield created chaos on the streets, and I imagine that there is a huge shortfall between the £240 million Government grant and the project's actual cost. Incentives to ride on such facilities, such as park and ride, need to be addressed. Many cities are on the starting blocks waiting to introduce their own light railway systems, which are truly no different from the high-rise, high-density concept--but I digress.
Houses in terrace-type blocks had their own front and back doors, and their own gardens to the front and rear. Access to the backs of all the houses was gained by way of a covered passage. The semi-detached houses on those "classic" estates were much sought after. Some of those council estates exist today. They are still very popular, and many of the houses have been bought under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.
During the period when compulsory purchase and slum clearance were in vogue, I became a member of Sheffield city council and of its housing committee and public works committee, the latter under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). A former chairman of Sheffield housing committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was then a Member of Parliament.
At that time, the Parker Morris standards determined the facilities and the plumbing, and whether a property could be improved at reasonable cost. Thus, dwellings that could have had a long life were demolished in the name of progress, and their occupants dispersed over the city. Communities were broken up, and the small shops that served the area were either demolished or had to close.
That was the start of a new environment in which traditional values were lost. I accept that not all the dwellings that were cleared were capable of being improved. Some would have had to be pulled down anyway, but many of the dwellings, with a damp-proof course inserted, new electrics, and a plumbing system coupled with a bathroom and kitchen, would have had a passport into the next century and onwards.
Meanwhile, high-density blocks of concrete flats with flat roofs invaded. If I had to select one such site as an example of that era it would be the Kelvin flats in Sheffield, which will be known to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is now in the Chamber. I remember canvassing those flats during an election campaign. The open decks turned into wind tunnels, making them freezing places. If one knocked on a door and waited, the tenant came up the steps to the front door--usually up the steps of the flat next door. Millions of pounds were poured in to try to improve those flats, but eventually the decision was made to demolish them all.
Some of the properties that had been removed to make way for the flats would still have been around, not only today but for many years to come. They had in-built durability, and we have yet to ascertain the durability of the dwellings built in the 1950s and 1960s.
The demolition of the original properties created the problem of breaking up communities, for many houses had been replaced by fewer dwellings--flats that were not readily accepted in an area not used to communal life in blocks of flats. That was all the fault of the nature of the planning brief in those days.
I recollect with fond memories that, on a popular estate--one of the estates that the Minister would describe as "classical"--it was possible to guess the age of the occupants of the houses. The names on the electoral roll were the giveaway, because they were no longer in vogue. The state of the garden too, gave a clue in most cases, letting us know that the residents were elderly, and might have moved out if there had been a smaller property nearby to move into. The four, six and eight blocks could have been converted into self-contained flats, with central heating and a lift on the outside of the block, which would in turn have released the other dwellings for other residents to use.
That would have increased mobility, yet most old people, rightly, wish to stay in their existing homes. Who can blame them? A good friend of mine aged 91--I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning him--has recently lost his sight. Last Saturday, he managed to find his way to my home, and after a long chat I offered to walk him back home to his wife. It was not far.
When we arrived at my friend's home, he mentioned his concern about the garden, and I asked if I could look at it. Hon. Members must not imagine that it is a large garden. We had to go down some steps--six in all. My friend counted them out, and informed me that some were wider than others. Then he pointed out where his roses, his soft fruit and his lawn were. Despite his blindness and disability, my friend had his memories and was at home. Move him, and he would be totally lost.
When I was in the house building industry, the sites were either green-field sites or infill plots. Today, our planners, like the Chairman of the Environment Committee, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, call them brown-field sites. The planners advocate making better and more imaginative use of existing buildings and empty homes.
The planners also advise that projections of housing provision should be subject to further examination as part of the preparation of a development plan, saying that we must ensure that up-to-date information is used, and should even take into account information on demographic and housing market trends, as well as land availability. House builders and councils will in future have to monitor the supply of land, while advice on the affordability of housing is spelt out in policy planning guidance note 3--PPG3.
Rural areas can be affected by "in-migration", which is a new word to me. Today, local authorities are advised to make use of existing housing stock and to reduce the number of empty dwellings. That is advice that a council such as Sheffield could take on board.
Last year in Sheffield, there were 330 properties vacant for up to three weeks, 363 vacant for between three and six weeks, 810 vacant for between six weeks and six months, 324 vacant for between six months and one year, and 219 vacant for more than one year--a total of 2,046. Those are the Audit Commission's figures, not mine.
In the Government's response to the Committee's report, it is said that, although the void rate is about 2 per cent., that includes properties in need of extensive renovation before they can be used, and properties awaiting demolition. Nationally, the number of local authority void properties awaiting minor repairs or letting averages just over 1 per cent., yet the percentage of Sheffield local authority dwellings unlet is 2.85 per cent., and the percentage for Yorkshire and Humberside is 1.95 per cent. Another interesting fact is that the average time taken to relet in Sheffield is 48 days.
The recommendation of today's planners is to encourage the conversion of larger under-occupied dwellings into flats. That takes me back to what I said before about terraced houses. It is a funny old world. Planners also advocate the conversion into dwellings of suitable non-residential property, such as former mill offices, warehouses and empty space above shops, and recycling vacant, under-used and previously developed land in urban areas. That advice could be followed by Sheffield development corporation in the lower Don valley--by building houses where factories used to be.
In rural areas, infill sites in rural settlements, when appropriate to their character and structure, may be a solution, but without incursion into the green belt. More is the pity that the planners of yesteryear were not given that simple advice, which today we can all go along with. If they had been, we would have a larger stock of what an old Sheffield alderman, a former chairman of the housing committee who is no longer with us, called units of accommodation.
It has been an enjoyable experience for me to return to talking about building, albeit for a short time. I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee report on housing need, especially the fact that they accept that the published estimates are but work in progress, and that they are working on a way of improving estimates of the demand for housing.
I also welcome the fact that the Government fully recognise the importance of improving their understanding of the factors that affect the number and type of households that are formed, and I await with great interest their discussion document, which will examine trends.
The Select Committee commented on empty dwellings. It is true that the performance of local authorities as landlords, with all their vacancies, leaves a lot to be desired. That factor is taken into account and used in the housing revenue account subsidy calculation, in recognition of the rental income that is lost to authorities. The proportion of local authority properties that are void while awaiting letting averages just over 1 per cent.
As I have already said, the private and public sectors must grow together to ensure that accommodation is available for our needs both today and in the future. I would have commented on many other aspects of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, but I know that others are waiting to speak.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |