NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to extend the area of a local planning authority.) (Hansard, 9 October 1944)

§ Mr. Storey
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Its purpose is to enable certain cities and towns, only seven in number, which are both widely devastated and are short of land within their boundaries, to extend their boundaries, so that they may be able to replan their civic future on sound and imaginative lines. Such planning demands that they should reduce their congestion, both industrial and human, by rehousing some of their citizens and re-siting some of their industries, as well as their civic services and amenities, in surrounding areas with due regard to agricultural and rural interests and to maintenance of the amenities of the whole area. Such planning will result, if the boundaries are not extended, in a loss of population and rateable value which will be crippling to the parent city and will leave it with a burden of debt disproportionate to the remaining population and rateable value. It will leave it also with public services and an administrative organisation on a scale quite unsuited to its reduced status. Furthermore, there will follow a loss of civic interest which anyone who has knowledge of the Special Areas, where anyone who can, lives outside the area and takes no part in civic affairs, results in a most deplorable state of affairs.
4.45 p.m.
It we refuse an extension of boundaries to these towns, they will be faced with an overload of debt and left with a top-heavy administrative unit and with public services designed for a population which will not again be achievable. They will be deprived, too, of the opportunity of extending their public services to their shifted population and of unified control over the execution of their development 1465 plan and over its future administration. Also, after the new Clause that we have added to the Bill just now, they may not have the right of rehousing their own people outside their own borough boundaries. If we are faced with these results of a refusal to extend boundaries, it is only human nature if civic authorities plan to lower standards and greater density than is desirable.
If these cities and towns had not been both blitzed and blighted, and at the same time were not short of land within their boundaries, I should be the first to say that the usual procedure should take its course, but in these cities both factors exist and devastation requires that we should act quickly. One could best illustrate what one means by the example of Plymouth, for not only do both factors operate there, but Plymouth has produced a plan which is bold in conception and far-seeing in vision. I do not, however, propose to illustrate my point from Plymouth, for I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Plymouth will follow me in supporting this new Clause. I only mention it so that I may pay a tribute to what Plymouth has done and to its plan.
I would rather illustrate my point from my own constituency of Sunderland. Sunderland, before the war, had a density of population of 26 to the acre, against an average for all county boroughs of 15. It had 1.45 families per dwelling, and only 50 per cent. of the families in Sunderland were in undivided possession of their own homes. While Sunderland has not suffered as other cities have, the position has been aggravated by the fact that 9 per cent. of the houses have been either destroyed or very seriously damaged and 81 per cent. have been damaged to some extent. Sunderland will require 12,500 homes to deal with over-crowding and slum clearance alone, and one-third of these must go outside the county borough. Sunderland must also provide schools, play-grounds and playing fields to meet the requirements of the Minister of Education. It will need a minimum of 600 acres when the school age is raised to 15, and of 700 acres when it is raised to 16. That is one-tenth of the present area of the county borough. That does not take account of county colleges, nursery schools and other special schools. Already Sunderland has had to put outside its borough boundaries 1466 schools which cater for children living within the borough.
There is a third reason. Sunderland depends very largely upon the heavy industries of coal and shipbuilding. It is essential to its future development that it should have new light industries, and these can best be located in the clearance areas in the borough where facilities are available. This, too, is in accordance with Government policy, but it will involve the town in a loss of rateable value. For these reasons, if we are to carry out the intentions of the Bill, if we are to deal with war damaged areas, which, to quote the words of the Bill, should be laid out afresh and redeveloped as a whole, if we are to deal with conditions of "bad lay-out and obsolete development," if we are to provide open spaces, playing fields and sites for industrial purposes, if, indeed, we are to carry out the intentions of the Government, we must go outside the borough boundaries. If we go outside without an extension of those boundaries, we will create a rateable value where none now exists, and we will lay the foundations for a heavy claim for compensation if ever the boundaries are extended. If we do not later get an extension, we shall have the existing debt, which is over £5,000,000, borne on a lower rateable value by fewer ratepayers. With Government assistance the rate is now 17s. 6d. in the £. If one-tenth of the population go outside the county borough without taking a share of that liability, the rate will be measured not by shillings in the pound, but by pounds.
If, therefore, we are to plan boldly and with vision, the question of boundaries must be settled first. Otherwise, everything we build outside may involve us in heavy compensation if the boundaries be extended, or a heavy burden of debt if they are not. Blitz and blight make it imperative that we shall act quickly. Therefore, we ask for some quicker method of extending our boundaries than now exists. The need for such a quicker method was recognised in the statement which the Minister of Health made to the House on 3rd August, when he said that the Government were satisfied that there was need and scope for amending the machinery of the Local Government Act, 1933, relating to adjustment of status, boundaries 1467 and areas. This new Clause proposes the way in which we may temporarily meet that need in strictly limited instances by means of a boundary commission. I am not closely wedded to this particular method. There is merit in a similar new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), which would give the power to the Minister of Health. What does matter is that some such power should be taken.
I shall probably be told that a Town and Country Planning Bill is not the place to take such power and that we must await a Bill dealing with local authorities. I may also be reminded that the Minister of Health is to open negotiations as soon as may be, that after that he will lay the outline of proposals before the House, and that after that again he will propose legislation. When is it likely that such legislation will appear upon the Statute Book? Those of us who have seen spring extend into autumn, who have learned that "by the harvest" is a kind of political recurring decimal to which there is no finality, may be pardoned if, when our need is great, we ask for action now. The new Clause asks for present action, but action which is strictly limited to a particular purpose. It asks it so that these seven cities and towns which have suffered severely by enemy action may direct their minds to putting into effect the declared policy of Parliament, free from the consideration that they are either laying themselves open to heavy bills for compensation or taking upon their shoulders a heavy burden of debt.

§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has stated with great competence a most forceful case. I hope he has persuaded the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause. He spoke with a sense of responsibility on behalf of a number of cities. The object of the Bill is to enable cities which have suffered war damage to reconstruct their fortunes upon a proper basis. The first effect of any good planning scheme must be to reduce the number of persons who inhabit any particular area. Wider streets, more parks and playgrounds and greater amenities, must result in a reduction of the number of inhabitants. The key-note of the Minister's speech on Second Reading was:
1468 "You must take a central, a unified view." He has repeated that argument, again and again, in the course of the Committee stage. He spoke of the case of the London squares as an illustration of what can happen when a central view is not taken. He pointed to the destruction of those squares, and the aesthetic injury that had been done to those squares, when the same land fell into a number of different ownerships. When a city is to be reconstructed under the Bill, its population has to be reduced. The authority must make provision for the surplus population. Accordingly, it must make use of land in contiguous areas, outside its own boundaries. What is the sustenance upon which cities live? It is rateable value. Population makes rateable value; consequently, if you get rid of population, you get rid of rateable value; your rateable value is less than it would be if your people had remained within your area.

§ Captain Cobb
Is the right hon. Member aware that the housing estates which were built outside London by the London County Council have been the cause of great friction with neighbouring authorities, who complained of the immense cost that those populations had been, as a consequence of being translated?

§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
That has not been the experience of the country as a whole. At Plymouth, for instance, that has not been the experience. The experience has been that the best type of resident, from a rateable value point of view, has gone out, and paid a lower rate. He has come in and used the amenities of the city, and got the full advantage of the activities of the city, but he has paid a lower rate by living outside the boundary of the city. When the city, through Private Bill legislation, applied for and succeeded in obtaining an extension of its boundaries, it had to pay £500,000 to the neighbouring authorities in order to get back the rateable value which it had itself caused to be created. That was the experience of Plymouth. A city can judge of its own interests, which cannot be disposed of by an interruption in the Committee stage of a Bill.

§ Sir H. Williams
What about the Private Bill legislation?

§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
The proposal of the Bill is that a boundary commission should 1469 inquire into these matters, that the city should be enabled to state its case—not to impose its will—and that neighbouring authorities should be able to state their case. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has asked about Private Bill legislation; when Plymouth last extended its boundaries, it did so by that procedure. It took many years, and cost £80,000 in lawyers' fees.
The Bill has been brought before the House in order that our cities may replan in our lifetime, and quickly. An expedited procedure has been suggested for acquiring land from private interests. The constitutional and historic method of acquiring land has been altered, but he who wills the end, must supply the means. He who says to the cities: "You must replan," must give them the opportunity to do so. The blitzed cities come here and say: "Very well. We would like to state a case for the extension of our boundaries. We do not wish to build up rateable value in the neighbouring areas which we shall have to acquire afterwards at a great cost. We do not wish contiguous areas to take the unearned increment. We wish to plan now and we wish that our boundaries should be defined now." No dictatorial method is suggested. If my right hon. Friend wishes to suggest any other method which would safeguard the neighbouring interests, let him do so.
It is quite clear that the neighbouring interests have something to say. The urban district of Plympton has something to say. It has circulated every Member of the House, quite rightly. Why should it not state its case before an inquiry? The House of Commons cannot adjudicate as between Plymouth and Plympton. The House of Commons is telling Plymouth to plan, not Plympton. Plymouth is an urban area, but there are great open spaces in Plympton which could be utilised to great advantage. It is suggested that a boundary commission should be appointed. This week, I think, the House of Commons is setting up a Boundary Commission, to adjudicate on the size of Parliamentary constituencies. Some hon. Members will have smaller constituencies. A boundary commission, in this case, is considered to be a satisfactory agency for determining the size of constituencies. My hon. Friend suggests that a boundary commission might ex- 1470 peditiously dispose of this matter. Judges could be put on the commission, and that the rival interests could bring forward their cases. Before recourse could be had to such a commission, it would have to be shown that the plan would be frustrated unless an adjustment of boundaries could be conceded.
Plymouth—and Plymouth must be mentioned—had a population of 220,000. As a result of this plan we shall have a population of only 170,000; 50,000 people will go outside our area as a result of our foresight and our vision, taking with them £10 per head of rateable value. Fifty thousand people and £500,000 will go, but we in Plymouth will have to keep up the same services. We shall have to provide education on the same scale, roads on a better scale. Our electric light and gas undertakings will lose revenue which these people would otherwise provide. They will take their gas and electricity from another area. When we produce our plan, we would like to state our case before an impartial authority for a revision of our boundaries.
Time is of the essence of the contract. If this he a planning Bill—it has many defects but it has great vision attached to it—let the cities plan, let them state their case. There is no seizing anybody's rights from them. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a local government matter. But planning is a local government matter. Everything depends on the area to be planned. If we are to take this unified view, I hope we shall not hear that old tale with which I am very familiar from both sides of the House, that "That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister for something else." My right hon. Friend has introduced this Bill, and he must see that it contains the Clauses which give the powers to carry out his great project. I would, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend to show his seriousness in this matter, and to recognise that this Clause is supported by a large number of blitzed cities. These are the cities for whose benefit the Bill is mainly introduced, and we have confidence that my right hon. Friend will grant this Clause which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister: (Mr. Attlee)
I have a brief statement to make which ought to be made to the House now. As soon as this is completed the 1471 House will be asked again to resolve itself into Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill.
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."
Question put, and agreed to.