Clause 2.—(THE COUNTRYSIDE.) (Hansard, 4 July 1967)

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 2, at the end to insert: (e) whether the land has been designated as an open space. The genesis of this Amendment lies in a development taking place on the south side of Glasgow, almost on the city boundaries. Anyone who knows Glasgow will realise the tremendous congestion which exists there, making the need for open space within the city imperative. This also produces a conflict between the need for open space and the need for houses. At the moment, the Glasgow housing shortage is of the order of 80,000. That is the number of persons who want houses in the city and who are on the waiting list.
All Glasgow Members, and other Members representing Scottish constituencies, recognise this enormous pressure. Glasgow is trying to relieve this by exporting as much of its population needing housing to other parts of Scotland as is agreeable. This still leaves the conflict between the need for space, which is essential, and the demand for houses. One must not continue building within any great city, because one creates a density which is far too high. One way we can decrease density is by providing open spaces, for play and recreation.
Already on the south side of Glasgow, congestion has become so great that the Secretary of State recently declared that the area was a congested area. He refused to grant permission for the development of a football park—Cathkin Park—for housing purposes and has decided that it must be conserved as an open space because of over-development in that part of the city. He has said that a great development is already taking place there, on an area which had been a playground for 35 years. This has now been wiped out. In that part of Glasgow there is now no open space. This is despite the fact that if the Glasgow Corporation had chosen to do so, it could have found all the open space that it required for housing only a little beyond its boundaries.
That open space beyond the boundaries still remains. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure, if the House sees fit to adopt it, and I hope that it will, that little bits of the countryside will be 1576 brought into the towns and retained there against the demands of housing, to be kept as playgrounds for the children who live in great cities like Glasgow. This is a simple and fair demand. It may be said that it might prejudice housing, but local authorities, particularly in large cities, have to look for housing space outside their boundaries as well as within. There is still plenty of land in Scotland to accommodate the overflow from the large cities without encroaching on the remaining free spaces in these cities.

§ Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and I can understand his concern to maintain some open spaces within the city. However, I should like to ask whether it is not the position that at the moment the local authority is the judge of these matters, and can decide to what extent an area within the city can, and must, remain an open space. I believe that Glasgow corporation has recently made representations to the Scottish Department about this matter, in another connection.
It is now the city's view that the open spaces should be more numerous than previously envisaged, at various points in the city. I do not know what particular site my hon. Friend has in mind, but there are some local owner-occupiers who do not want open spaces near to them to be made into housing developments, and these have made representations too.
Can my hon. Friend tell me whether local authorities have the power to say to what extent an open space should be either divided or attenuated or whether they can deal with such a matter? I would ask him not to press the Amendment, because the point that he wishes to make would be covered by subsection (2,b) of this Clause, lines 40 to 42, of which say: in the case of extensive areas of open land within burghs or other centres of population, the suitability of that land for open-air recreation … If this is so, I am prepared to leave the local authorities to judge.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
To some extent my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has posed the 1577 problem at which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) hinted and which local authorities face. The principle for which my hon. Friend the Member for Govan is arguing is covered by paragraphs (b) and (c), although I agree that it is not easy to translate it into practice.
Although he did not name it, I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the problem of the Hillpark site of Glasgow which those of us who were born in the city and know it well know to be on a prominent hill in the Pollokshaws area of Glasgow. Much of the site is steeply sloping and the bulk of the land on the top of the hill is for school use. Most of the surrounding area is occupied by housing and the closest large open space is a quarter or half a mile away.
Part of the land was scheduled for housing in the 1960 quinquennial review and at the end of 1961 Glasgow Corporation advertised an amendment to the development plan which extended the residential area to form a housing site of 26 acres in all. I agree that the proposal was defective, because of a technicality of procedure, and had to be advertised a second time and therefore excited more objections than were expected A public inquiry was held. The corporation proposed a total of 1,400 houses for the site, but the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), on receiving the report of the public inquiry, agreed with the reporter that the density was too high, and he accordingly suggested that it should be reduced by almost half to accommodate 770 houses.
However, the right hon. Gentleman consented to its residential zoning and it was only later, in 1965, when I met the corporation and discussed the whole of Glasgow's problems with it, when we tried to get a balance of both points of view, that the problem of Hillpark arose again. It was felt that 770 houses was still too high a density for that particularly advantageous area. Later we consented, with reluctance, to a development of some 500 houses on the site. Work began last Christmas and is now in progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan will appreciate, we cannot do anything about that issue now. What 1578 we are now discussing is the general principle of the best use of open spaces in a very congested city such as Glasgow.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "advantageous area"? Is this a planning term? What did he mean when he used the term to describe Hillpark?

§ Dr. Mabon
I am talking strictly in planning terms. I do not know whether I am quoting the reporter absolutely correctly, but in my opinion this is a particularly good site in the context of the argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Govan was adducing. However, I must point out that, like individuals, Ministers inherit situations, and we inherited a situation whereby, after a public inquiry, the Secretary of State had agreed to the residential zoning of this area. We have since suggested that the density, which was originally suggested as being about 700 houses, should come down to precisely 509. That has been agreed and I deliberately used the expression "with reluctance".

§ Mr. Speaker
I have allowed the Minister to answer the illustrative argument. He must now come to the Amendment itself.

§ Dr. Mabon
I am much obliged. You have been more than tolerant, Mr. Speaker, in this regard. My hon. Friend was trying to draw the general argument based on a particular instance.
We have done our best to meet the need for the provision of adequate open spaces and amenity in towns and we are constantly urging its importance on local planning and housing authorities through our own planning and housing divisions. What the Hillpark site has demonstrated is that we now have a definite agreement with Glasgow, which, as everyone will admit, has peculiar problems, and we have an understanding that twice a year we will consider the matter afresh to see that we have a good understanding of the development of Glasgow in planning terms. It will be recollected that in the Civic Amenities Bill and in other legislation, and in circulars we have urged various authorities in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, to consider this matter constantly and to see whether they have struck the balance correctly.
1579 My hon. Friend can take strength from the fact that what he proposes is covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Clause and to add his suggested paragraph (e) would simply rehearse what had already been said. I know that he is not so much interested in adding another line to the Bill as in covering the principle which he has advocated and in making it clear, not only to the legislators but to the policy makers, that we have to make sure that we do all we can to maintain a proper balance between open spaces and housing development. That is constantly under review with particular reference to Glasgow.

§ Mr. Stodart
I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) with considerable sympathy, but I was very much swung by what the Minister of State said in reply and also by his reply to my Amendment, which he declared to be unnecessary. I wished to add 14 words to the Bill which I had thought would make a slight improvement, but the Minister said that they were not necessary. I had thought that the 10 words which the hon. Gentleman sought to add were well covered by paragraph (b). I should therefore like to commend the Minister of State for his consistency so far.

§ Mr. Rankin
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all he did about the specific case which I raised, although I did not name it. I kept clear of it, because, as he will appreciate, I am closely identified with it and I did not want to appear even to seem to have an interest. I tried to argue the general case of the conflict which is taking place in Glasgow between the need for space and the need for houses. I believe that in the interests of the overall health of the city space is as important as housing. While I recognise the rights and powers and duties of the corporation, the corporation cannot have an unchallenged authority to go ahead with development, however worthy, without the Secretary of State having some say, and he has imposed a veto on a development in the south side, which is nearer to the centre of Glasgow than is Hill Park.
My hon. Friend has told me that my new subsection is not necessary because all that I want to achieve is compre- 1580 hended in subsection (2,b). I have trusted him so far, and I will continue to do so. I accept what he says.
In view of his promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 26, at the end to insert: (7) Every local planning authority shall make available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours and without charge copies of the maps relating to their district which have been approved by the Secretary of State under this section, including any amendmens of those maps which have been approved as aforesaid, and copies thereof, including reproductions on such scale as may be appropriate, shall be made available by them on sale to the public at a reasonable cost. This new subsection ensures that copies of the maps of the countryside approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 2 will be available for the public to inspect and purchase if they wish. I promised the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) at the second sitting of the Standing Committee that I would look into the matter and discuss it with the Association of County Councils. I have so done. This Amendment meets that pledge.

§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)
May I put a point to the Minister of State? The new subsection states specifically that the local authority shall print and publish the maps. Will they be available, too, to the Stationery Office? If anyone visiting Scotland had a mind to see some of the open countryside and some of the areas which have been designated, he would want to know in advance where they are. Will the maps be published by the Stationery Office or, failing that, will they be listed in some way by the Stationery Office in order that the public may get them?

§ Dr. Mabon
No, Sir. I think that the Countryside Commission will probably keep a reference of these maps. Either the Countryside Commission will advise persons that they can get them from the appropriate county council or they will be able to supply the maps themselves. But I should not like to say that all local county councils will have them printed at H.M.S.O. Some of them might. I do not know. They might be printed 1581 by a local printer, which is the sort of thing we like to encourage. We shall try to get a central body—I take the point—so that those visiting Scotland may get the maps from the central body if they cannot get them locally.

§ Mr. Stodart
May I thank the hon. Member? He has completely met the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and myself. It is important that the public should be able to get these maps.
May I follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend he Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), which I think is a good suggestion, by pointing out that one of the central organisations might conceivably be the body to which perhaps most holiday-makers would turn—the Scottish Tourist Board. Although they did not do the printing, at least they might act as agents for distribution. I appreciate that the hon. Member wishes to examine the point.