HC Deb 09 February 1966 vol 724 cc402-8
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman)

With permission, in view of the importance which any Minister of Housing and Local Government must attach to the views of the Council on Tribunals on his planning jurisdiction, I felt it right to give the House as soon as possible my comments on the Report issued this morning by the Council which is critical of my handling of certain planning applications concerning the Packington Estate, in Islington. I apologise in advance for the length of the statement, but this is a complicated issue.

The case concerns two planning applications made by Islington Borough Council for the redevelopment of this estate. The choice was either to rehabilitate, as has, of course, been done successfully in some other parts of Victorian Islington, or else to clear and redevelop the whole estate.

The first application came to me as an appeal by the borough council against the failure of the London County Council to reach a decision on its application, and I decided that the issues were of sufficient importance to call for a public inquiry. At this inquiry, in February last year, the proposals for redevelopment were opposed both by the local planning authority and by a number of third parties, including a group of 425 residents of surrounding properties. The objectors developed their case at great length and explained in detail how they thought the area could be successfully improved without redevelopment. But my Inspector came to the conclusion that redevelopment was the right solution.

When I came to consider his recommendation I sympathised with those who found the area attractive and who saw its potential for improvement. But the case against rehabilitation was strong. I was impressed by the expense and difficulty of achieving a really good result by these methods; and I had to take account of the 100 extra dwellings that redevelopment would produce.

I therefore said in my decision letter that any scheme which is to be acceptable must produce an environment which would justify the loss of the existing buildings; and it must not prejudice the amenities of the surrounding area. The letter went on to say that I would want to be satisfied that this result would be attained before I would feel able to decide in favour of redevelopment against rehabilitation. I also said in my letter that I would arrange a discussion with the borough council about how this could best be achieved. In short, I dismissed the appeal and made it perfectly clear that I wanted to see a better redevelopment scheme before I could drop the possibility of rehabilitation.

Following this, the borough council made a second application for planning permission for a revised scheme of redevelopment, and this was referred to me for decision. I could at my discretion have held a second inquiry on this application. But since the objections to redevelopment and the arguments for rehabilitation had been thoroughly discussed at the first inquiry, I came to the conclusion that in this case it was reasonable to dispense with a second inquiry.

It is this decision that the Council on Tribunals has criticised, particularly on the ground that it is difficult to reconcile with what I said on the first application.

I have thought this criticism over very carefully indeed and appreciate the motive which is, of course, to ensure that decisions are not taken without fully ventilating the facts and giving objectors the fullest opportunity for protest. In this case, I am clear that nothing would have been gained by a second inquiry that would have justified the months of delay. Having satisfied myself, there- fore, that the revised scheme was a good one, I granted planning permission for it.

The Council admits in its conclusions that I did not at any stage exceed my powers. I believe that I used those powers, as Parliament intended, to reach a prompt and fair decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any special report by the Council on Tribunals criticising a Minister's conduct in a particular case is a serious matter which the House will wish to probe after it has had the opportunity not only to consider the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but to read the special Report from the Council which, as he said, was available only this morning?

Is he aware that on a quick reading of the Council's Report one of the major points of criticism appears to be the fact that the objectors to the scheme which he approved not only had no opportunity whatever to put their case against it, but were unaware of its details until after his decision?

Pending the debate on the matter which I hope will take place, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that, notwithstanding the attitude to public inquiries which he has expressed on other occasions, he will take this Report by the Council on Tribunals to heart and apply the spirit and principle of that Report in his dealing with future cases?

Mr. Crossman

The fact that I consider the matter to be serious is indicated by my decision to make a statement in the House this afternoon at the first opportunity.

As for the suggestion that the House would like to discuss it after studying the Report, I can say straight away that, if it can be arranged through the usual channels, nothing would please me more than a discussion on this matter. Indeed, I would like us to have a whole day, if we could, to debate the whole structure of our present planning procedures, because I think that we spend far too little attention in the House on this kind of extremely important administrative problem.

There is nothing I want more than a full and frank discussion of (a) the Packington case, which is extremely interesting and which has raised issues of principle, and (b) the issues of principle themselves.

I should like to reserve what I have to say about the objectors until we have the full discussion which I hope is to be arranged.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance that I had taken to heart what the Council had said. I have considered the Council's representations very carefully. As I was preparing this statement, I heard that the Council did not urge that I should have had a second inquiry, but I am very clear in my own mind, after taking into consideration all that the Council said, that the decision which I took was the right one.

I add one other thought. As a Minister of Housing and Local Government, one has first to consider whether an inquiry is legally necessary. However, even when it is not legally necessary, as in this case it was not legally necessary, a Minister should always choose an inquiry where it is necessary either to elicit the facts or to enable people to protest. But, once that has been done, the need to inquire must be balanced against the need not to have intolerable delay. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the biggest single complaint which I receive from the construction industry is that planning procedures are causing intolerable delays.

All I am saying is that in every decision as to whether an inquiry should voluntarily be given by me, I have to strike a balance between the need to investigate and to give the right of protest, and the need to say that there should be no further delay and that we should get on with the building. I felt on investigation that everything had been discussed almost ad nauseam and that the time had come for building.

Mr. Corfield

Is it not abundantly clear, however, that any arguments which were made at the inquiry were directed against the first scheme, which, by the right hon. Gentleman's own case, was an entirely different scheme and must have been entirely different from that which he approved? Is it not wrong for him to say that the inquiry was given by him voluntarily when he says that it was into an appeal against the refusal by the L.C.C. to give its consent? Is not that an occasion on which he is bound to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Crossman

I went into the law very carefully before making this statement. In this particular case I had to choose whether to grant an inquiry or not. It is true that if either Islington or the London County Council had asked for an inquiry, which they did not, I would have automatically had to give it. As they did not do so, it was left to me to decide whether to hold an inquiry into it.

Mr. Lubbock

While agreeing with what the Minister has said about the effect of planning delays on the construction industry, does he not think that the advocates of rehabilitation should at least have been given the opportunity of expressing a view on whether or not the criteria set out in his first decision letter had been satisfied by the new scheme? Is he aware that many people, not only in Islington, but in other parts of the country, are very worried about the way in which these far-reaching planning decisions are deliberately concealed from the public until it is too late for them to make any objection?

Mr. Crossman

If I had thought that there was any suggestion of concealing a planning decision from the public I would have been shocked. There was no suggestion of concealing a planning decision. On the contrary, it had been subjected to a long investigation. If it is suggested that the actual design of the block of buildings was something which should only be decided by an inquiry, one must distinguish between the giving of planning permission in general and the study of the particular form of architecture which one is using. It is on this point that we would need to have a period for probing our planning procedures.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in view of the answer that he has given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that if the Report of the Council on Tribunals is to be believed, the would-be objectors sought information on the second plan from the Islington Council and were refused it on the ground that it was before the Minister? In the light of that, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no concealment of the plan from those who would have objected?

On the final sentence of his original answer to me, is the House to understand that, notwithstanding the censure of the Council on Tribunals, he has indicated that he would act in exactly the same way again in a similar situation?

Mr. Crossman

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to read my statement. I said that I had very carefully considered the view of the Council on Tribunals and, on reflection, though I understood its motive, I still think I was right in thinking, as I gather it now does, that no second inquiry was necessary, and that I was, therefore, right to give the decision to go ahead.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the face of it the decision is similar to the Crichel Down case? Although my right hon. Friend only asked that the Minister would bear the Council on Tribunals' representations in mind in future, is it too late for the Minister to reconsider his decision at this stage? Has he not the power to withdraw his previous decision in order to give satisfaction to the people about this new scheme, and see that their point of view is taken into account? That was done in the Crichel Down case by the Minister who then sat on that Bench.

Mr. Crossman

I know that Members of the Opposition will clutch at any straws, but I think that they will be disappointed if we have, as I hope we do, a full discussion of this case and of planning procedure. The hon. Gentleman will not find that this is a Crichel Down case.

As to his other point, my answer is that the decision has been taken. There was no suggestion by the Council on Tribunals that it was not within my power to take the decision and I have decided that the decision was the right one to take in the circumstances, although I do bear in mind, as I always have done, the need to make the fullest possible investigation, as the Report suggests.

Sir David Renton

Can the Minister deal with the point, twice raised by my right hon. Friend, and to which he has as yet given no answer, namely, what of those objectors, or would-be objectors, who had no notice of the second application? Is he saying that he considers that his procedure has worked satisfactorily from their point of view?

Mr. Crossman

What I am saying is that the question I had to decide was between rehabilitation of this area and redevelopment. It was a finely balanced decision and I decided, after a long inquiry in which all of the objectors' cases were put, that, provided I could be satisfied that the redevelopment would be satisfactory, I would permit it to go ahead. Therefore, when I was convinced of this I made my decision.