Clause 44 (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment 108, in page 37, line 29, at end insert: (5) A person on whom a repairs notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the land, may within twenty-eight days from the service of the notice appeal to the Minister against the notice on any of the following grounds—

(a) that the building was not of special or historic interest; or
757
(b) that the works are unsuitable or un necessary to the character of the building; or

(c) that the works required are the responsibility of some other person; or

(d)that the cost of the works is disproportionate to the value of the building; or

(e) that the cost of the works is more than the person served with the notice can reasonably afford.

(6) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal; and on any such appeal the Minister shall give the appellant and the local planning authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose. (7) On the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister may quash the repairs notice or confirm it. The Amendment attempts to provide for an appeal against a repairs notice. Under the Bill a repairs notice is described as a preliminary to a compulsory purchase order, but it is definitely preliminary. Where a local planning authority considers that a listed building is in bad repair it can serve a repairs notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the necessary repairs or they will issue a compulsory purchase order.
I think that the Government are assuming that every repairs notice will be resisted, that there will not be any attempt to comply with it, and that it is just a pure preliminary. The way they behaved on the last Amendment is indicative that the Government do not understand about listed buildings and buildings of historic interest. People are very fond of them and want to preserve them. They may be rather ruinous.
I have a little cottage in my constituency which was the bakehouse of the village. Under the last Amendment, I might be forced to turn it back to a bakehouse. But if I were served with a repairs notice saying that the bakehouse was in poor condition—it is several hundred years old—I would have the choice of complying with the notice or seeking to object to it on the ground that it was unnecessary to keep the bakehouse in good condition when the rest of the cottage was in perfectly good order and presented a good appearance.
But there is to be no appeal at that stage. The only opportunity for appeal arises when we get to the stage of a compulsory purchase order. I do not see why the owner should be put to the 758 mental distress of going as far as a compulsory purchase order and then having to resist it to obtain an appeal against the repairs notice. In most cases, the owner, on receiving a repairs notice, will say, "Can I afford to do this job?" and probably getting estimates, finding that the job would be very expensive and then deciding whether the job is really necessary. At this stage, there should be an appeals procedure to see whether the repairs notice is reasonable.
I know that the Minister does not want more and more appeals. Nevertheless, we want justice for the individual. Individuals' rights are constantly being overridden by this Government. This is a chance to give an opportunity for an appeal procedure at the right time and not to have to wait until a further step has been taken which most owners would wish to avoid.

§ Mr. MacDermot
As was explained in Committee, the repairs notice procedure is nothing more than what I described as a warning shot across the bows. If the owner of a listed building allows it to fall into disrepair in a way which threatens its continued existence, one of the remedies for the local authority is to acquire the building. We thought it right that, before it was able to launch compulsory purchase proceedings, it should give fair warning by specifying what it considered were the repairs which should be done and giving that notice to the owner. That is all it is, and nothing more.
We do not want an elaboration of appeals systems upon appeals systems. If and when the owner ignores that warning notice and the local authority proceeds to compulsory purchase, there are written into that stage all the rights of appeal which can be requested. He can appeal against the listing. He can appeal on the ground that the repairs he is being asked to do are unnecessary and excessive. But it would overload the whole system to have a separate system of appeals merely against this warning notice. Long before one reached this formal warning notice, one would have had discussions between the local authority and the owner, and one would get to this stage only if the person adamantly refused to repair. Some people refuse to repair in the hope that the building will fall to pieces and thus 759 they will be able to pull it down and get the real development value of the building.
I agreed to look at one point raised in Committee, namely, the suggestion that there might be difficulty in a case in which the person with the repairing liability as between owner and tenant was the tenant. I see no point in looking at it; it is not being pressed. The repairs notice is a preliminary to acquisition, and, since it is the owner who suffers if the building is acquired, he is the one who should receive the warning. The relationship between the owner and the tenant is a legal matter. The owner can protect himself, and in an ordinary tenancy agreement he does so. It is up to him to retain sufficient control by a normal tenancy agreement to enable him to safeguard his rights.

§ Mr. Graham Page
This is inconsiderate to the owner of the property. Here is a person who owns a listed property. The local authority thinks that it is in disrepair; the owner may not think it is in disrepair, and there may be a dispute about it. Normally when a local authority serves a person with a sanitary notice or a dangerous structure notice he has the right to defend himself against it. That is merely defending oneself before the magistrates. Here there is no appeal against the first notice. It is followed by what we call a compulsory purchase order, which is an order to take a person's property away from him. This can be justified in the Bill merely by serving a notice on the person that the listed building is in disrepair.
This is very inconsiderate and may cause grievous hardship. Many of us in our constituencies have seen terror strike into the hearts of owners when they have received compulsory purchase orders. We call them that because we are dealing with them every day, and they are not compulsory purchase orders on our own homes, but when a constituent comes to us with a compulsory purchase order on his home, we know how terrified he is.
Surely we do not have to go to that procedure immediately from a repairs notice. A form of appeal from the repairs notice could relieve the. owner of that sort of terror.

§ Mr. Lubbock
Would the hon. Gentleman consider that, instead of appealing to the Minister and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite implied, over-burdening the machinery, it might be a suitable case for appeal under Clause 19 of the Bill where, instead of the appeal going to the Minister direct, it goes to a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose?

§ Mr. Graham Page
That is a very sound suggestion. All I want to do is to put something in between the service of the notice and the service of the compulsory purchase order, so that there can be arbitration between the parties on the repairs notice.