HC Deb 16 November 1944 vol 404 cc2201-8

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 12, at end insert: (3) An Order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid shall not be made by the authority or approved by the Minister unless the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, are or is satisfied that the alteration or extension of the building in the way prohibited would seriously affect the character of the building. (4) Sub-section (2) of the said Section seventeen (under which an Order prohibiting the demolition of a building is of no effect until approved by the Minister, and the Minister is required to consider representations of the owner of the building before approving such an Order) shall apply to an Order giving or adding such a direction as aforesaid.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The proposed Sub-section (3) is designed, in the interests of the owner, to prevent this power being used in any vexatious way to check alterations in a building which really need not be checked at all. It meets the general desire to insert words into the Clause to make it clear that alterations or extensions of buildings for which the consent of the local authority, or on appeal of the Minister, may be required, and which are to be prohibited in the absence of consent, are only such as would seriously affect the character of the building. The object of the new Sub-section (4) is to make it quite clear that the obligation on the Minister to consider representations from the owner before an Order is made, which is expressly given by Section 17 of the Statute of 1932, will apply to an Order prohibiting the alteration or extension of a building. The effect of Sub-section (4) was, in fact, as a matter of legal construction, already in the Bill; but it is just as well that the owner's rights should be quite clear on the face of the Statute.

2.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the argument of the Minister. The Lords Amendment is extremely wise and is drawn with great skill to secure that alterations for which notification has to be given are only such as would seriously affect the character of a building. Those are the exact words we want. I cannot imagine anyone in his right senses wanting to prevent anybody from putting a knob on his front door or making any other reasonable alteration. I gather that notification is to be given before the alterations which would seriously affect the character of a building can be carried out.

Mr. Strauss

Perhaps I might clarify the point. I do not want my hon. and gallant Friend to be under any misapprehension as to the Sub-sections that we are putting in to deal with the Preservation Orders that can be made. They do not at all affect what I was discussing on the last occasion, what an owner of a listed building is prevented from doing for two months, when no Order has been made. That is in the Sub-section now numbered (3) which will become (5) and is not affected at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

Am I in Order in asking my hon. Friend to say whether the owner of a listed building can carry out normal repairs and alterations which do not affect the character of the building, without giving notification? Does the Amendment which we are now discussing limit him to alterations that seriously affect the character?

2.41 p.m.

Mr. Wilmot

I wonder whether I may now ask the Minister a question which I asked him just now. This is a particularly important matter, and the House will be glad to have an assurance. What we have in mind is to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this Clause, and the preservation one as now amended, give him power not only to list and preserve a particular building of artistic merit but to prevent its being spoiled by undesirable development around.

Let me take one particular case. Lewes High Street is a place for which my hon. Friend and myself have a great affection. In that street are a number of Queen Anne and early Georgian houses. They are all of that character, but between them there are innocuous early Victorian houses, mellowed by time. They live together in a very happy street. If one of those beautiful Queen Anne houses were listed and preserved, and although it could not be demolished or spoiled, if it had as neighbour instead of the existing old houses a multiple shop on the one side and the fake classical façade of a banking palace on the other side, the value of that house as an example of the period, and the value and beauty of the street, would be ruined, almost as much as if the house itself had been demolished. When I raised these points earlier, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were very sympathetic and they promised to see whether they could, at a later stage, take powers to effect that sort of preservation.

2.43 p.m.

Captain Duncan

I would like to support what has just been said by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot). There has been some correspondence in "The Times" recently about Well Walk, Hampstead, which is within the area of the London County Council, and which the hon. Member knows something about. There are a number of houses in that beautiful, old-world street in the middle of modern Hampstead, and it is in danger of being ruined as a whole by somebody who is seeking to promote the building of possibly unsuitable houses on the site of two or three empty houses. Will it be possible to stop that sort of thing, under this Bill?

2.44 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

Perhaps I might have the consent of the House to say a few words on the subject, and to clarify a few points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is very technical, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Sub-section (1) of Clause 41 as it stands, apart from the Amendments, he will see that the Preservation Order may direct that, without the consent of the authority, the building shall not, in any way prohibited by the Order, be altered or extended. The proposed Sub-sections—and I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the way in which he has welcomed them—limit what it is proper and possible for the Order to contain. It is the Order that we have to look at, to see what the owner can do and what he cannot do. I do not know whether I have made this point quite clear to all hon. Members, but that is the position. The effect of it is that it is only things that seriously affect the character of a building that properly fall within the Order.

Now let me turn to the point put by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) and other hon. Members. The hon. Member gave examples of streets of admirable houses and mentioned one of the best in the country, Lewes High Street, which is the subject of the last chapter of a fascinating book, which I hope everybody will get, by the Director of the National Buildings Record, called "Our Building Inheritance." The book should be in the hands of every local planning authority.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)

Is that an advertisement?

Mr. Strauss

It is not an improper one, I hope. Let me say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Kennington that there is a great deal for which we must rely on civilised action by local planning authorities. I would just remind them of the Sub-section I mentioned before, Clause 17 (8), in which it is stated: In exercise of the powers conferred by this Section a local planning authority shall have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest. Those words give direction and guidance to local authorities about what they are to do in this matter.

2.45 p.m.

Captain Duncan

Will the Minister read on "and the Minister?"

Mr. Strauss

I thought that, having drawn the attention of the House to this, I had probably reached the bounds of Order. My answer to the hon. Member is that these surroundings can be protected, but mainly by other planning powers, not preservation orders. The authorities can, however, acquire what I might call the immediate surroundings of these buildings. If Members will look at Sub-section (6) of the Clause we are dealing with, they will see that a local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, acquire by agreement the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the authority and the Minister to be required for maintaining it or the amenities thereof, and they can also acquire by compulsion in certain cases. I think the hon. Member will find the answer to his question in Sub-section (6) of Clause 41 which we are now considering.

Mr. Wilmot

I would take it from that that the lack of powers which prevented the Minister from doing something to save Berkeley Square has now been remedied?

Mr. Strauss

If the House would give me leave to reply in one sentence I would say that at that time the Minister had no powers where the local planning authority, in that case the L.C.C., gave consent. If my hon. Friend has a grievance against anybody, it is against the L.C.C.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 27, leave out "one month," and insert "two months."

2.47 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I am sorry that in earlier speeches I rather assumed that this Amendment which I am now seeking to make had already been made. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion, the time limit was one month, and hon. Members in various quarters suggested that we might make it three months. On consideration of the facts it was thought that one month was too little, and three months was too much, and everybody agreed on two months.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

I hope my hon. Friend will not make similar assumptions in other parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments in page 49, line 27, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 32, leave out from "or," to "so," in line 33, and insert: health, or for the preservation of the building or of neighbouring property,

Mr. Strauss

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is not a drafting Amendment but is so obviously an improvement that I move it without further explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 49, line 39, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 34, at end, insert: Works specified by the Minister as being required for properly maintaining a building as respects which an order under the said Section seventeen is in force and which is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, shall be added to the classes of work specified in Part II of the Third Schedule to that Act (which specifies improvements in or towards payment of which capital money may be applied, without any scheme being first submitted to the trustees of the settlement or the court, subject to provisions under which repayment of capital money applied may be required to be made out of income.

Mr. Strauss

This is an Amendment which I think will be welcomed by hon. Members, to deal with the case where one of these houses is settled property within the meaning of the Settled Land Act. It was inserted in another place at the instance of legal Members with great legal knowledge of this subject. I think it improves the matter from the point of view of the owner, and should be added to the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 34, at end, insert new Clause C (Appeals in respect of design or external appearance of buildings). Where, in accordance with paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, provision is made by a planning scheme for enabling the responsible authority to regulate the design or external appearance of buildings, any appeal under that Sub-section from a decision of the responsible authority shall, if the scheme so provides, lie to the Minister instead of to a court of summary jurisdiction or a special tribunal, and accordingly the said Sub-section shall have effect as if, after the words 'summary jurisdiction' there were inserted the words 'or to the Minister.'

2.50 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a small Amendment which deals with the tribunal to consider questions of external elevation and design where there is an operative scheme. Where there is an operative scheme under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, the appeal by an aggrieved owner, who wishes to do something to his building to which the planning authority objects, under the scheme can go either to a court of summary jurisdiction or a special tribunal. The present Amendment supplies a third alternative, which the scheme may provide, namely, the Minister. There are I think considerable advantages in that. A court of summary jurisdiction is, by general consent, not a suitable tribunal for these questions. There cannot be a single special tribunal, and a multiplicity of special tribunals would mean that it would become more difficult to work out a code or standard for the guidance of all concerned, and an appeal by agreement to the Minister is now a good deal more popular than that form of tribunal in many cases. The matter, of course, will not be quite outside the control of this House. This is only what a scheme may provide, and of course a scheme has to be laid before this House. It is an obvious improvement to provide that the appeal may lie to the Minister who is already the person to whom the appeal lies at every stage until there is an operative scheme. He is the tribunal in all appeals on these questions under interim development control, which applies to almost the whole country, and it is proper, I think, that the questions which already come before him under interim development control should also come before him under an operative scheme.

2.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

I cannot let this pass without saying this is another instance where appeals are being placed entirely in the hands of the Minister. If it was this Minister I would have every confidence, but suppose the Minister is one of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. I might have every confidence in him if I had not heard some of the remarks about what they wish to do so far as nationalisation of the land is concerned. I would only draw attention to the argument which has often been put forward as to whether one should always have to appeal to the head of the authority with whom one is at loggerheads. For that reason I do not like this Amendment, although I do not propose to divide upon it.

Question put, and agreed to.