Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I do not intend to detain the House for long, because we have a lot of business, all of which is of great significance. It is worth having a word, however, given
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1114
 
that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) properly said that the Bill received all-party support in Committee, where I was able to wax lyrical at considerable length about the Bill's importance in relation to the marvellous work done by the Prince of Wales on this subject.

I shall make three points. First, I shall amplify the point about enabling legislation. The new clause enables and does not oblige, and in that sense it is a helpful and measured addition to the Bill, given that it does not necessarily create a great deal more regulation, which is always an issue with this kind of private Member's Bill. There has ever been a certain tension between the desire to protect and the problem of over-regulation, and I must say that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has recognised that tension in much of what he has said and written about his Bill.

Secondly, the new clause is consistent with the rest of the Bill. Sustainability is about having proper concern for the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings that are of special or architectural interest. It would be quite wrong to see the thrust of the rest of Bill outside the context, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has set out today, of the footprint that buildings make upon the landscape; of their relationship with the history of the communities in which they sit; and of their balance with other structures around them. It is important that we use this opportunity to reinforce the significance of buildings of historical importance.

Thirdly, the objective is achievable. The Bill is in line with best practice, which, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove properly said, we often enjoy owing to the good work of organisations such as English Heritage. However, I shall sound a warning note: he was, as ever, measured, but concerns have been raised in my constituency and elsewhere that the prospective changes to how buildings are identified, which he did not mention, may put more buildings at risk. I am not making a judgment on that point, but that view has been expressed.

I ought to have declared this interest at the beginning of my contribution: I live in a listed building. I must say that it is not one of the first 9,000 listed buildings, and it is not even one of the next 20,000 listed buildings—I may be a star, but my home is not starred—but it is one of the 300,000 ordinary listed buildings. I have a personal interest in the matter, which I care about for that reason and for many others. There is concern that our system of listing might be diluted by some of the changes that have been mentioned. As in Committee, I draw the attention of the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to the at-risk registers, and to the large number of buildings that have sadly been added to those registers and which remain of considerable concern. The hon. Gentleman will have watched assiduously—because he is the sort of man who would—the programme "Restoration", which highlighted many interesting buildings that were at risk. I understand that there is to be a new series. That exercise provided a small illustration of a much bigger problem. In most of our constituencies, there will be an interesting building that is of architectural significance and adds to the landscape, but is at risk. I mention that as a caveat to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1115
 

I am glad to associate myself with the new clause, and I am confident that this particular Minister will take it on board with relish.

Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I, too, strongly support the new clause, which is intended to remove a potential barrier in the Bill in relation to environmental issues such as fuel poverty and climate change.

Historical properties and conservation areas account for an enormous amount of domestic tourism, and it is important that they be allowed to thrive. Guildford has a conservation area in its centre. Other cities, such as Bath and York, are able to offer tourism to people with a wide variety of interests. For example, one family member may want to look at the architecture while another wants to go shopping. Such dual-purpose visits bring money into the economy of an area and the UK as a whole. It is important that those high-quality buildings attract investment when renovation is needed. There are a plethora of small properties in conservation areas such as the Cotswolds and the Yorkshire moors. Together, they contribute a great deal to the cultural wealth of the area, as well as to its economy.

I hope that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested, we will be able to find a range of standard solutions. For example, if the roof of a building is being renovated, that offers an opportunity to increase insulation. Businesses could specialise in solutions that consider the building as a whole, to ensure that it plays its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

That is particularly applicable to smaller buildings. I am thinking about a row of shops in Guildford—delightful buildings. If one shop needs renovating, those on either side are also hidden by bulky scaffolding and often passers-by cannot see whether they are in business. They are not chain stores, but individual craftspeople. There is a hat shop next door to an absolutely delightful cake-decorating shop—that is where the bride's mother goes when she is planning a wedding. Lengthy renovations with scaffolding everywhere can detract from the vibrancy of the area.

That is why I am keen to have standard solutions to ensure that when renovations take place, people know what work they will be doing before the scaffolding goes up. Then, the work can be done quickly and effectively while retaining the character and charm of such areas, which we all want to enjoy.

I will be delighted if this thoughtful and sensible new clause goes forward with the rest of the Bill to become a helpful change in the building regulations.

Dr. Palmer: I, too, support the Bill and the principle of the new clause. I am particularly enticed by the vision of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) living in his historical grotto: we would not wish to disturb his lair.

My only reservation is that, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, listed buildings are a very varied collection of animals. Often, the owner of a listed building finds himself in a catch-22 situation whereby he is forbidden to make the changes that are needed to make it economical to run, or to knock it down, but unable to maintain it in its present state. I hope that the new regulations are not applied in such a way as to make that dilemma worse.
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1116
 

Conversely, though, we need to ensure that we do not create a large loophole in the Bill by having a vast category of buildings for which it becomes the normal practice that we do not bother to try to improve insulation and take the other desirable measures mentioned in the Bill.

The new clause strikes a reasonable balance by allowing for special considerations for such buildings, but not insisting on their application in every case. Despite the hon. Gentleman's clarification, I think that he would agree that cases will arise in which a local authority would, as with other buildings, feel it open to it not to press for any particular modifications. The whole Bill is about giving an authority the option to do so, rather than requiring it to do so. For some buildings—and perhaps grottoes—the necessary modifications will not be practical.

With that qualification, I warmly support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): It is good to be here to debate the Bill on Report, and I hope that it will be successful in receiving its Third Reading. I will say more about the Bill overall when we reach that stage, but for now I shall address my remarks specifically to the new clause.

An amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in Committee regarding the desirability of preserving the historic or architectural interest of certain buildings was withdrawn for further consideration because it was felt that its scope was too wide, although the principle behind it received general support. That is reflected in what hon. Members have said this morning. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for tabling the new clause, which the Government consider honours the principle that received cross-party support in Committee.

The new clause says that the special character of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making building regulations. The difficulty that we had with the amendment in Committee was that its definition of protected buildings included those in national parks and in areas of outstanding beauty. That remit was regarded as too wide, as it took no account of the character of the buildings themselves, only of their location.

The new clause recognises current practice in proposing new or amended building regulations. In doing so, we do not consider general exemptions for historic buildings. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) that a general exemption is precisely the kind of loophole that we do not want. That is why the enabling power is worded as it is; the regulations resulting from it will deal with the matter.

10 am

Where appropriate, the approved documents that support the regulations, which will be drawn up and published at the same time as the draft regulations, will give guidance on how the requirements should be applied to such buildings. For example, the current
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1117
 
documents for part L, which deals with conservation of fuel and power, and part M, which covers access to and use of buildings, both contain guidance on how the requirements in those parts should be applied to historic buildings or those in conservation areas. As I said in Committee, in relation to individual buildings, local authority conservation officers and local authority building control officers will discuss how best the requirements might be applied to historic buildings or those in conservation areas.

It is widely felt that this pragmatic approach works well both in achieving compliance with the building regulations and in preserving the historic or architectural interest of protected buildings. The new clause will not disturb those arrangements. I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), living in whatever folly or grotto he lives in, is able to support the Bill. He reminded us in Committee of his concern for beauty, saying:

He then gave us a very good description of what he meant by beauty, which impressed us all, even though it was slightly irrelevant to the Bill. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) also served on the Committee, and she made an important point today about tourism in conservation areas. The detailed points that she made about the regulations are obviously not a matter for the Bill at this stage, but will be a matter for consideration under the building regulations. No doubt when we go out to consultation on any new regulations resulting from the Bill, those points will be taken into account.


Next Section IndexHome Page