HC Deb 11 February 1959 vol 599 cc1254-9
Mr. Speaker

I do not select the next Amendment, in page 6, line 30, at the end to insert: (4) A warrant for the demolition of a building shall he subject to the condition that the operations shall be completed in such reasonable period of time as may be determined by the buildings authority. It can, of course, be discussed with the almost identical Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 7, line 4, at the end to insert a new subsection. They cover the same point.

Mr. J. N. Browne

I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 35 to 40 and to insert: any application for a warrant shall state the period of intended life of the building (being not greater than that specified in the said provisions of the building standards regulations) and, without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection and subject to the next following subsection, the warrant shall be subject to the condition that the building will be demolished on or before the expiration of the period so stated". The Amendment refers to the life of a temporary building. Regulations will lay down the maximum life of a temporary building. As the Bill stands, the building authority will have discretion to reduce that maximum for any building, and, of course, there is no appeal on the period it may fix. On the other hand, it may be worth a man's while to build, say, a temporary shop, so that he can have, say, five years' trading. The building authority may give him only two years so that he must risk a further extension of life under subsection (5).

Under the Amendment the building authority can give the applicant the period for which he asks within the specified time limit. If the authority thinks that the period is too long it can turn down the application and the prospective builder can appeal. Building authority is in no way impaired by this Amendment. The builder will know exactly where he is in the first period. After the first period the builder must take his chance on the building period over which the building authority has discretion. Then the builder can appeal, if and when the building authority refuses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 1, leave out by such amount as they think fit".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. J. N. Browne

I beg to move, in line 4, at the end to insert: (6) A warrant for the demolition of a building shall be subject to the condition that the demolition shall be completed within such period from the commencement of the operations for the demolition as may be specified in the warrant. This Amendment meets the promise I made to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). In the cases to which the Clause refers, of the owner applying for a warrant to demolish, the hon. Member was quite right when he said that the demolition of a building should not create dangerous conditions by being unduly prolonged. So long as the work of demolition is completed in a reasonable time it does not matter so much for the purposes of this Clause when the demolition starts. The warrant for the demolition of a building might be applied for at Christmas, for instance, and it might be more convenient, and perhaps cheaper, to wait until spring to carry out the actual demolition work.

Turning to the suggested Amendment to line 30, which was not called, I would point out that there is only a slight difference between two points of view. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) preferred a time limit for the completion of demolition rather than a limit on how long demolition should take. Hon. Members will bear in mind that the warrant for demolition is one which is applied for by the owner of a building, who is unlikely to apply for a warrant for demolition and not do anything about it. What matters, therefore, and what normally will be the case, is that the difficulty will not be when demolition starts but how long is taken after it is started.

The hon. Member might have thought that, after receiving a warrant to demolish, the owner might fail to start work for an unreasonable time and that might create a difficulty, but, if he causes a danger or holds up planning, there are ample powers under other Acts to deal with that problem. I think we have met the promise I made to the hon. Member for Hamilton by putting down more or less the same Amendment as was suggested by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hannan

Had my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) been with us, he would at least have desired to acknowledge that the Government have taken action to meet the point we made in Committee. He acknowledged in Committee that the initial speech on the subject was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).

I am satisfied that I may speak for both my hon. Friends, neither of whom is in the House at present. We should be very happy to accept this Amendment. We understand that the difficulties are met with after the warrant is issued. That was the main substance of the argument about delay made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East. In view of what the Joint Under-Secretary has said, I think we should be satisfied that quicker steps would be taken if we accept the Amendment he moved.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

I am afraid I do not know a lot about this Bill, and I was not on the Standing Committee. I rise merely to ask a question. In my part of the country—indeed, all over Scotland—for various reasons many country houses are being demolished. It makes a great difference to the price which the owner of the house gets if the demolisher does not have to demolish the stonework. He buys the house as it stands, probably removes the slates off the roof and takes out panelling and doors and all the valuable fixtures, and leaves the rest in a safe condition, but not demolished. If a condition of sale is that the buyer has completely to demolish the property, the price of the country house becomes much less.

I wish to ask whether, now that county councils are to have these building powers, complete demolition will be obligatory in any order or permission given by a county buildings court in the case of an owner who wishes to sell a house of this type.

Mr. Browne

Under the definition of building, people can include part of a building and an owner asking for a warrant for partial demolition would, I have no doubt, be able to satisfy the building authority that that was in order. He would receive approval to demolish the part he wished to demolish, but he would have to do so within the time specified by the local authority.

Mr. Ross

Am I to understand that the demolition is not to be completed at all and that we shall have the possibility of partial demolition? One of the things which has annoyed people is that demolition work has started and not been completed. I thought the acceptance so graciously by the Government of the spirit of the Amendment showed that some action was to be taken to make sure that this would not happen in future.

We have seen this happen over and over again in the centre of towns. People have been told by local authorities to get on with demolition and they have started with a burst of enthusiasm and then stopped. We have seen it in almost every town in Scotland. Demolition has started and then stopped and it has been a long time before any further action has been taken. Quite apart from the question of the site itself, the result is unsightly. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, if it were a matter of danger the question could be tackled in other ways, but I still think that this is important because the question of personal danger seldom crops up until some children are playing among half demolished buildings and an accident occurs.

If demolition is to be started, it should go on until the work is completed. I hope the answer given by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) will not mean encouragement to building authorities in future to sanction partial demolition, because I do not think that would meet the objections put by my hon. Friends in Committee. I am grateful for what the Government have done. I am a little doubtful about the danger of no limit being fixed from the date of commencement. I hope the words the Under-Secretary let drop today have not spoiled what seemed to be the good intentions of the Government in respect of the orginal discussion.

Mr. Browne

I speak again by leave of the House. I should like to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). We put down the Amendment to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and others that, where danger is caused in cities when various buildings are half demolished and litter is left on the road, the period allowed for the completion of the demolition should be specified. I think we are meeting the point put by hon. Members opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 9, at end insert "buildings".

In line 11, leave out the second "the" and insert "that".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

In line 15, leave out "Nothing in this section shall prevent" and insert: Notwithstanding anything in this section it shall be competent for".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

In line 16, leave out "from refusing" and insert "to refuse".

In line 24, leave out "from refusing" and insert "to refuse".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne

I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end to insert: or if, where the application relates to an extension to, or alteration of, a building, they consider that as a direct result of the extension or, as the case may be, the alteration the building as extended or altered will fail to conform with the building standards regulations; and nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of section seventeen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, or section two of the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Act, 1957 (which sections in their application to Scotland, as amended by this Act, empower or require buildings authorities to refuse to grant warrants in certain circumstances)". This is an essential Amendment which was recommended by the Guest Committee at paragraph 124 of its Report. I will be quite frank with the House and say that we took some time to formulate this Amendment exactly as we wanted it, and that is why it was not put down in Committee. The Amendment protects the occupants of an altered or extended building where the alteration or extension directly causes some part of the existing building to fall below standard. If the unaffected parts of an existing building are already below standard, the building authority cannot require work to be done on those parts by reason of the extension. It can only require work to be done by applying the "reasonably practicable" formula for non-conforming buildings in Clause 10.

The point is best illustrated by examples. First, the toilets in a building may be sub-standard but not bad enough to require renewal. There may be an extension of the building which calls for more toilets and it may be more convenient to locate them in the old building. The new toilets must be up to standard, but the old ones need not be altered. Secondly, an escape route in an old building may, by reason of an alteration or extension, no longer conform to the regulations. In these cases the buildings authority would be entitled to refuse warrant unless alterations were made in the plans.

The second part of the Amendment is largely drafting. Under the two Acts referred to, warrants can be refused in certain circumstances. The obligation to grant a warrant in Clause 6 (2) does not override the right to refuse a warrant contained in the two Acts referred to.

Amendment agreed to.