Clause 34 (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I do not know whether I should rise to a point of order, since I had hoped for some elucidation 748 of this Amendment. But if the explanation is satisfactory, I shall not be able to speak again, and I can only hope that one of my hon. Friends will take up the point—

§ Mr. Murton
I will.

§ Mr. Cooke
My hon. Friend, luckily, says that he will do so.
The object of the Amendment is that original materials shall be used in the alteration or extension of a building. This is a worthy object: if a building is to be damaged by alteration, it is clearly preferable that as little damage as possible should be done.
However, taking this new subsection (c) with (a) and (b), we can see that a little more explanation is required. Subsection (a) refers to the preservation of particular features of the building, either as part of it or after severance therefrom; Do the Government take that to mean that, if the alteration or extension is authorised and involves the severance therefrom of particular features, this part of the Clause would seek to preserve those severed features, or would it also protect parts of a building which were dismantled long ago but are still lying on the site? I cannot see how such features can be protected unless they are covered by this subsection.
Part of a great complex of buildings might have been demolished or have fallen down a century before and be lying on the site—carved stonework for instance. One recalls the fireplace at Tattershall Castle, which Lord Curzon helped to preserve.
3.0 a.m.
At my own home, I have had great difficulty in preserving parts of the building which were demolished a century ago. Some person thought he had a right over them and so wanted to cart away stones from the site. Ten years ago I tried to enlist the support of the Ministry in this, and it said that there was nothing in law that could be done, and I had to do a deal with the man to stop him from taking the stones away from the site.
I hope that Clause 34(l)(a) and (b), and now (c), will result in the proper protection for parts of buildings which are dismantled as a result of the authorisation contained in the Clause or were dismantled years ago. I hope I am right in 749 thinking that there is some protection here. If there is not, perhaps the Government would give an undertaking to look at this in another place, because this is a very important matter.

§ Mr. Skeffington
Perhaps I may explain the circumstances of this Amendment. In Standing Committee there was a proposition which would have ruled out the service of a listed building purchase notice where listed building consent is granted subject to a condition that the building should be rebuilt in its existing form. This seemed to be an interesting possibility of retaining, at any rate in outline, a desirable feature of a complex of buildings, and I undertook to consider the proposal. On reflection, we thought it would not be appropriate to exclude the service of a purchase notice in every case where replica rebuilding is permitted, since in some circumstances there might be no reasonably beneficial use even for a replica.
It is desirable, however, that, in granting either listed building consent or planning permission, the planning authority should be able to impose a condition requiring replica rebuilding. Therefore, the Amendment adds this type of condition to the list, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, in Clause 34(4) of the conditions which may be imposed on grants of planning permission, and by Clause 34(5) on grants of listed building consent. Appeals may be made against the imposition of this type of condition, as against any other.
Whether this would cover the case of remnants of previous activities I would like to consider further, and I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I am grateful for the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has given, but would he explain to the House whether it is possible under this procedure for a condition to be that parts of the building, which may be of historic interest, and which could be reinstated, should be used for re-erection on the same site? Or has it to be on some other site? Suppose a fine doorway. Can it be carted away and put up somewhere else?

§ Mr. Skeffington
That is so. This, of course, refers to the applicability to the site.