Clause 10.—(EXPENSIVE SITE SUBSIDIES.) (Hansard, 8 March 1967)

§ Mr. Mellish
I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 9, line 23, to leave out from "any" to the end of the line. 1662 The principle applied here, and the arguments advanced about individual dwellings on the site as a whole, applies to the expensive site, but here we use the word "acreage". I should be glad to answer any point that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) may raise, but he can be quite sure that the assurance I gave about site subsidies applies also to the expensive site. If he seeks further clarification, I am quite willing to contact him, though I think that he will find from the lawyers that we have cleared the problem on both subsidies.

§ Mr. Allason
The size of the site and the price of it will affect whether the expensive site subsidy operates. In an area like Erith there is, presumably, a good deal of land which is unsuitable for building. If the whole area is considered to be the site, then it might be that the expensive site subsidy would fail, simply because there is an extra acre or two of land brought in which is waste land and cannot be used for the site, but which would nevertheless be counted in.
The way that the Parliamentary Secretary has described apportionment was that he would try to divide up the entire site mathematically. If he does this, he will perhaps do injustice to some people. While we are on the subject of the expensive site subsidy, can he give me any more help about Hillingdon, which had a problem, raised in Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary then said that he would try to be as helpful as he could. It struck me that perhaps the Amendment that he has down gives him much wider discretion to include or exclude. In the case of Hillingdon it was not that the site was too big or anything like that, it was only that it was using the wrong yardstick, the yardstick of the previous Bill introduced in the last Parliament.
Nevertheless, as the subsidy is to be retrospective to the date of the publication of the previous Bill, there seemed to be a strong case for examining the Hillingdon matter carefully. I hope that the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has redrafted the expensive site subsidy will make it possible for him to give some good news to Hillingdon.

§ Mr. Mellish
On the latter point, of Hillingdon, I believe that I am right in 1663 saying that this may be covered later in Amendment No. 39. If you allow this Amendment to be called. Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to give the hon. Gentleman some information then. This is a complicated subject, and with the expensive site subsidy the process is even more complicated, because the subsidy has to be calculated by reference to the acreage of the site, that is to say, instead of paying the subsidy as a percentage of the cost, the Bill has to provide for a subsidy of so much per acre.
The administration of this expensive site subsidy will be done in just the same way as the basic subsidy. We work out the total subsidy payable on the site, and divide it on the same basis for each of the houses or flats to be built. I can give the assurance that we will try very hard to see that the two principles are allied, and that both the expensive site subsidy and the basic subsidy are taken on the same principle.
As an hon. Member put it very simply; does it include the front and back gardens? The answer is, "Yes." In the case of the basic subsidy it was asked: Does it include the site; in the case of the expensive site, the acreage? The answer is, "Yes, it does." Because of this we have had to put so many Amendments down to make this clear. I hope that I have made it clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: No. 32, in page 9, line 27, leave out from first 'of' to end of line and insert: 'the same proportion of the area of that site as the proportion of the cost of acquiring that site which was apportioned to the dwelling for the purposes of any subsidy payable under section 2 of this Act'. No. 33, in line 29, leave out 'building' and insert 'dwelling'.
No. 34, in line 32, at end insert 'of the site'.
No. 35, in line 36, after 'cost' insert 'of the site'.
No. 36, in line 40, leave out 'the dwellings' and insert 'dwellings on the site'.
No. 37, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'building' and insert 'dwelling'.
No. 38, in line 7, leave out 'dwellings' and insert 'dwelling'.—[Mr. Mellish.]

§ Mr. Speaker
We come now to Amendment No. 40, with which we can debate Amendment No. 39 in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), in page 10, line 8, to leave out subsection (3).

§ Mr. Mellish
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, may I be allowed also to discuss Amendments No. 41, in page 10, line 13, to leave out from beginning to 'not' and insert, 'in that area will be', and Amendment No. 42, in line 16, to leave out from 'accommodation' to 'not' in line 17 and insert: will be available in dwellings in that area will be'.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no objection to the course which the hon. Gentleman pro-poses, if the Opposition have no objection.

§ Mr. Allason
We have no objection, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Mellish
I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 11, after 'unless' to insert: 'by reference to such area including the whole or part of the site as the Minister considers appropriate for assessing residential density and after the completion of the dwellings to be provided on the site or that part thereof'. This Amendment and Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 go together. They will enable the Minister to exclude or to add land to a housing site which is the subject of an expensive site subsidy application for the purpose of assessing residential density to determine whether subsidy should he limited in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10(3). This is necessary because the site, as it is taken for subsidy calculations, may not form a meaningful unit for the calculation of residential density in accordance with the accepted planning conventions.
To give an example, if a housing site contains an area of land which cannot be built upon, but which has to be acquired as part of the site, its inclusion in the residential density calculation could result in a loss of expensive site subsidy to the authority because of the provisions of Clause 10(3). This might not be fair to the authority since the land 1665 is not usable. The Amendments will enable the Minister, in such a case, to disregard the unusable land.

§ Mr. Allason
Things are moving in the right direction, bcause instead of having the concept of considering a particular site and determining precisely the number of dwellings per acre which will be provided on the site or counting up the number of people who will be housed on the site, the Minister takes an area at his own discretion and obviously comes to a much more reasonable view of what should and should not be included.
I am not sure from the brief description of the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is taking into account all the schools, playing fields, local shops, health centres, swimming baths and facilities which one expects to find in a residential area and which tend to keep down the density, whether he will look at the exact site area where the residential building is to go up, or whether he will look at a larger area. It is very difficult to describe, because in some very large schemes he will do one thing and in small village schemes obviously he will not need to look very wide for his area. I am not clear how big will be the area that he will look at, but now at least he is giving himself discretion.
Perhaps I might now return to the point about Hillingdon which I raised in the wrong place. I feared that we were going to pass over expensive site subsidies by being told that it was all consequential, and I rushed in too early. I hope that this means that Hillingdon, under this Amendment, will be able to adjust its areas and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to do something for a perfectly genuine case.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
I take it that the whole of the land which is the subject of the expensive site subsidy would have to be zoned for residential purposes on the development plan. Therefore the point raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about swimming pools, playing fields, and so on, would not apply. However, there is one point which I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, and in putting the question to him I am not in any way objecting to the discretion given to 1666 the Minister, because it could be a valuable addition as it is proposed in the Amendment.
Would he clarify the example which he gave? Does it relate to land with a very narrow neck attached to it which is all part of the expensive site but which, for obvious constructional reasons, could not be used for building? If that is the case, how will the Minister exercise his discretion when there is part of the land which is associated with a residential development but which is used for amenity purposes? In the front of a block of flats, there may be a few trees planted. Would it not be possible occasionally to say that, although such land cannot be built on, it is necessary to have it for decorative or amenity purposes in association with that housing development?
I think that it would be of advantage to know a little more about how the Minister will exercise the discretionary powers provided in the Amendment.

§ Mr. Mellish
The interventions from hon. Members on the Liberal Bench are intelligent, but they are repetitive. I was asked the same question by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). He asked whether the gardens front and back also qualified, and the answer is that they do.
On the expensive site subsidy point, I have made it clear that, whereas the Amendment which I have already moved will give the Minister discretion, some of this land will be unusable for building. If it is shown that an acreage of land is necessary but that only a certain part of it can be built up for housing, provided that good reasons are shown to the Minister, he will have the discretion to say that the whole of that acreage should qualify for the expensive site subsidy. The case has to be made by the authority concerned because, after all, we are dealing with considerable sums of money which have to be spent wisely and well.
I am glad that the debate has gone in this form. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is basically a probing one. It simply deletes subsection (3) of Clause 10, which provides that expensive site subsidy shall not be paid on land costs in excess of £10,000 per acre.
1667 There has always been a limitation of that kind attached to the expensive site subsidy. Previously, the requirement was simply that the development of a site should include a block of flats of four or more storeys. That was nonsense, since it meant that it did not matter how wastefully the site was developed, provided it included one block of flats of four storeys. It also meant, by the way, that it automatically attracted the high flat subsidy payable on a block of four or more storeys whether or not it was necessary to provide flats as part of the development.
The Town and Country Planning Association and other associations have long objected to this irrational provision, and we are very glad to be able to get rid of it. But that does not mean to say that we can afford to dispense with any condition for ensuring that there expensive sites are used economically. We have substituted a new condition related not to a block of flats, but to the density at which the land is developed. It provides a far more flexible and suitable control. Within the density limits provided, the local authority can develop the site as best suits its needs.
10.30 p.m.
The following are the new conditions taking account of Government Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. First, the area by reference to which the density will be calculated is whatever the Minister considers appropriate. He can look at the site in isolation or as a whole, or at part of the site—for example, if a part cannot be developed—or at a somewhat larger area. For example, if the development of the site is limited by the high density of surrounding development, he can take whatever area is logical for assessing residential density.
Secondly, the density relative to the area must be either 35 dwellings per acre or 70 bed spaces per acre. In practice, this could mean a minimum of 35 one-bedroom flats and old people's cottages, or about 18–20 three-bedroom houses or flats—that is, one double bedroom or two single ones—or any mixture of family houses or flats that would accommodate 70 people to the acre. This is not by any means a 1668 very high density. It can be achieved entirely in two- and three-storeyed buildings. It is the minimum density at which one can justify the building of subsidised local authority housing on land costing over £10,000 per acre.
There have been no complaints from the local authorities about the provisions. Most local authorities are only too anxious to make the fullest practical use of expensive land, which by definition is land in short supply. The only point that the associations have raised is that we should do what we can for local authorities which have already gone ahead with schemes on the basis of the old four-storeyed block of flats conditions. I promised in Committee that we would consider such transitional cases, but I could not promise that we should be able to help where a site could have been designed to make more economic use of the land.
The London Borough of Hillingdon, to which the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead referred, was specially mentioned. It has been in touch with us, and the Department is now discussing the matter with it. It may be—I hope so—that Government Amendment No. 40 will enable us to find a helpful solution. But I would remind the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead of the remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) in Committee: I hope very much that he"— that is, the Minister— will not feel, if a site is developed uneconomically, that he should subsidise uneconomic development. The hon. Member went on: Surely 35 houses to the acre … is a reasonably density for land valued at £10,000 an acre"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 7th February, 1967; c. 308.] but not for land which is valued at £50,000 an acre. I agree.
The density conditions are essentially minimum densities relating to land cost of £10,000 an acre. I cannot believe that local authorities would not have the sense to develop more expensive sites at higher densities, bearing in mind, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead pointed out whenever he got an opportunity, that as density goes up so costs tend to go up. One must keep a sensible balance between land cost and building costs. 1669 I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was a probing one. I hope that I have assured him about Hillingdon, and that I have cleared up some of the anomalies that still exist on this point.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: No. 41, in page 10, line 13. leave out from beginning to 'not' and insert 'in that area will be'.
No. 42, in line 16, leave out from 'accommodation' to 'not' in line 17 and insert: 'will be available in dwellings in that area will be'.—[Mr. Mellish]

§ Mr. Speaker
I am advised that Amendments No. 43 to 52 are consequential upon an earlier Amendment. I propose to put them formally.

§ Mr. Allason
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think that you included Amendment No. 51 among those which you proposed to put formally. I hope that you will not do so, because I have tabled an Amendment to it.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I like accurate information about groupings from both sides of the House, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member.