HC Deb 16 July 1971 vol 821 cc996-1006

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

It is most unusual to be speaking twice in one day, and I hope the House will forgive me. I will not take up too much of the Minister's time on this issue which is of importance to one of my constituents. I am raising what may appear to be an ordinary matter that happens every day of the week, but I do so because it is an injustice to the individual and because it spotlights a serious problem which can affect, and possibly in other forms does affect, many thousands of people.

My constituent, Mr. D. J. Lloyd, of 15 Wensleydale Road, Liverpool 9, purchased the house in which he lives in June, 1970. Mr. Lloyd is not a wealthy man. He is a worker in a factory in the Kirby area. He put a great deal of his savings, and probably most of them, into purchasing the house, and he has a mortgage. He is a young, energetic man and a good citizen.

Mr. Lloyd was extremely happy with his purchase. He has a young family, and he felt that he was beginning to make some progress in the world and in his family life. He had not been in the house very long when, on coming home from work, he discovered that next to his house on what had been a piece of waste land several prefebricated garages had been erected close to his house. He had no knowledge that these garages were to be put there ; they just appeared. They were built within three inches of the gable end of his house, and he realised that he would not be able to paint the gable end and would not be able to get at it if it became damp. We all know that when two buildings are close together dirt and rubble tends to infiltrate into the gap, and this affects the conditon of both properties. In this case one of the properties is a dwelling-house.

My constituent was amazed at this and, to say the least, somewhat annoyed. The line of garages continues along the side of his garden fence to a height of seven or eight feet and, what was previously a reasonable outlook has now gone. If it is argued that anybody could have put up a fence that high without planning permission, that argument certainly cuts no ice with my constituent. If somebody had come along and sought to put up a fence without planning permission, then there might have been some agreement between my constituent and the person concerned about the height of the fence, but my constituent had no say in the matter. When he contacted the planning department of the city council, he was told that planning permission had been granted in 1965.

It could also be argued that my constituent's solicitor should have discovered the position. Had this happened, obviously my constituent would have decided not to go into the house. He probably expected the piece of waste ground to be developed as a playing field or bowling green or something of the kind. When my constituent discovered what had happened he was obviously most upset.

The practice of delegated powers by the planning committee has grown up in past years in Liverpool. This is not primarily related to this particular case, but it is relevant in the sense that it is not the best way to deal with planning decisions of this kind. In many cases not all councillors, unless they carefully watch the proceedings, understand what is going on when delegated powers are being dealt with. The matter can only be brought back to the full city council if an objection is made, and that is not always possible with delegated powers. I hope that this matter will be looked into.

My constituent came to me very angry at what had happened, and I promised to look into the case to see what could be done. I contacted the city council, the town clerk of Liverpool, and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I received a reply from the town clerk's department on 8th April this year. I wish to quote part of that letter : The City Planning Officer has examined the planning application for this estate which was approved by the City Council in 1965, and is quite satisfied that neither the layout plan nor the detail plans relating to the garages offer anything untoward from a planning point of view … According to the submitted plan, the garages should provide a barrier the equivalent of a six or seven foot high wall along the side boundary of this house. The City Planning Officer is of the opinion that the line of garages does not offer a materially different outlook from a seven foot high wall or fence which could be built in the same position without planning permission. I have raised this point before, but I will not say what my constituent said about it. The letter continues : Both these methods "— he is referring to building by brick or prefabrication— are acceptable under building legislation, but this does not appertain to the legal rights or obligations of adjoining homes or buildings regarding access for maintenance or repair which can only be enforced under common law. This means that my constituent can go to common law ; and he understands this. However the letter misses the point.

I received a further letter from the Secretary of State on 12th May, and it was couched in rather more sympathetic terms. It said : I have some sympathy with Mr. Lloyd in what has happened, but I do not think that there is very much that I can add to what the town clerk has said about the planning and building aspect. At least the Secretary of State's letter showed some sympathy with my constituent whereas the letter from 'the town clerk did not appear even to understand the anger of my constituent about this matter. The Secretary of State's letter said : Mr. Lloyd may wish to consider seeking legal advice about any right of access he may enjoy. I also received a further letter from the town clerk on 11th May, which said : … in the event of the vacant land at the end of the garage forecourt being developed, there would be no access for refuse collection and it would be necessary for the general engineer's division of the Transportation and Basic Services Department to provide a public passageway. To that extent there was a recognition that my constituent had a problem and that something would be done about that aspect.

In my constituent's reaction to all this, firstly he threatened not to pay his rates, saying that he would go to gaol as a matter of principle if the need arose. I do not want to see any of my constituents unnecessarily in gaol. One of the biggest gaols in the country is in my constituency. I do not want it chockablock with my constituents on issues such as this.

I persuaded my constituent to pay his rates for the time being whilst I raised the matter in the House to try to air the whole thing. My constituent is not wealthy. Therefore, he cannot go to the courts just like that. Legal aid may not be available because, whilst he is not wealthy, up to the present time he has been in full employment and there would be a problem on that matter.

There ought to be some machinery provided quickly at local levels, perhaps in the form of the Ombudsman, the Local Government Commissioner which we are discussing, so that constituents would be able to go to that representative who could look into the whole matter, not in the same way that a Member of Parliament can do so but so that constituents can hope that there will be some powers, after the matter has been investigated, under which decisions could be made which would help them in this sort of distressing situation.

It may be that an agreement could be arrived at if the buildings were moved another foot or so, so that my constituent could get to his wall, and if perhaps a passageway were provided so that he could get round to the back of his house. This could have been arranged had he known originally that the garages were to be put there. There should be some machinery on matters such as this to which constituents can refer.

Too often the little people, in a financial sense, are treated rather cavalierly and do not receive from society the treatment that they should have. It could be argued that, had my constituent known, and had his solicitor told him, he could have made his choice. But he did not know, and no one told him. Therefore, he was placed in this very difficult situation.

I ask, first, that the Under-Secretary should again investigate the situation ; secondly, that he should examine the existing law to see whether amendments can be made to deal with problems of this kind ; thirdly, that the local ombudsman or local government commissioner should be appointed as soon as possible ; and, fourthly, that all local authorities should be urged not to delegate powers to their planning committees so that there is always the chance early on of a councillor seeing difficulties of this kind, protecting local residents and possibly asking them how they feel about any application before planning permission is given.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put forward the problem of his constituent, Mr. Lloyd, in a very reasonable and sympathetic fashion. I start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development has said already. We have a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Lloyd in his predicament. Here is a comparatively young man with a young family who has put his savings into a house. I can understand his pride in his new home and his concern when, as it must have seemed to him, overnight he found garages going up alongside his side wall and alongside his garden.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that hon. Members, whether or not they are Ministers, are able to sympathise with these problems. We all have constituents and we all have experience of the problems of people who are caught up in the complexities of the law, planning permissions, and the rest. For that reason, I understand fully the background of Mr. Lloyd's annoyance. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at the site plans and the history of this matter very carefully, and that it is on that basis that I have prepared my reply to him today.

As the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, this case has nothing to do with my hon. Friend or with me. As my hon. Friend said in his letter to the hon. Gentleman of 12th May, these are issues which essentially rest with the local authority.

In effect, the hon. Gentleman has asked whether my Department can intervene at this stage in Mr. Lloyd's interest. I suppose that it can be argued that there are some eventual powers resting with the Secretary of State. However, it is this Government's policy, as it has been the policy of all our predecessors, to use these reserve powers to revoke a planning permission only when there are exceptional reasons of public policy to justify our doing so. It is my right hon. Friend's concern not to inhibit the independence of local planning authorities in the discharge of their statutory duties. I believe that that is a position which is well understood in the House.

I comment on this case under three headings. The first is the planning grounds. I cannot accept on the evidence that I have seen in this case that the city council's decision was wrong. The owners of the land, in this case the developers, were entitled to build up to the boundary of that land, provided that they did not create a fire risk in doing so. As Mr. Lloyd's own house is built right up to the edge of his land any space left by the adjoining owner between it and the buildings that he might erect—that is to say the garages—would represent the sterilisation in planning terms of that vacant strip for Mr. Lloyd's personal benefit.

This is essentially a conflict of interests between adjoining land owners. On planning grounds, there is no reason to object to the development.

The second comment concerns legal grounds. There is no reason to suppose that anything has been done here which is in any way unlawful. My hon. Friend suggested that Mr. Lloyd might wish to seek legal advice about any right of access he may enjoy or any obligation on the part of the adjoining owner to allow him access which might be infringed by the erection of these garages.

The hon. Gentleman has fairly made the point that legal proceedings can be expensive. From my study of the matter, I have no reason to suppose that there is any infraction of the law or that Mr. Lloyd might be able to obtain redress if he were to pursue such an action. If that were Mr. Lloyd's wish, he might care to consult his legal advisers about it.

The third ground on which I comment concerns communication : namely, whether Mr. Lloyd knew, or was told when he bought his house, that garages were likely to be erected alongside it. I think that that is the heart of the matter.

I find myself in some difficulty here because the dispute is really between Mr. Lloyd and his solicitors and the City Council. It is difficult for anyone in central Government to intervene or to find out the full details of that kind of dispute.

In fairness to the City Council, planning permission was given for this estate in 1965 and the detailed permission for the garages to be built was given in 1966. So it was well known that the garages were to be built alongside the houses on this part of the estate for a period of five or more years before Mr. Lloyd purchased his home. He bought his home in June 1970. At that time the adjoining site was still vacant, though the garages were built shortly afterwards. However, it was a matter, I will not say of common knowledge, but of public knowledge, that the garages were to be built. I think that the principle of caveat emptor, that a purchaser ought to place himself in full possession of the facts concerning his purchase, ought to apply here.

I gather that in correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the town clerk the planning points have been dealt with ; but, because I thought it right, I looked at the questionnaire which was sent to the council by Mr. Lloyd's solicitors. Through the courtesy of the town clerk I have a copy of it here. On 14th May, 1970, Mr. Lloyd's solicitors sent the conventional questionnaire to the local authority inquiring whether they knew of any planning permissions or developments which were likely to affect the property which he was purchasing. The standard inquiry, No. 12, reads : Are there any, and if so, what, entries relating to the property in the register kept under section 19(4) of the Town and country Planning Act. 1962? In reply to that the city council said, "Yes", and it gave the number of the planning permission, including the garages, B.20602. It goes on to say : Permission granted 3rd June, 1965, to erect 28 two-storey terrace houses, one detached house and 29 garages at Wansley Road. So, in reply to the questionnaire sent in by the solicitor acting for Mr. Lloyd, the city council volunteered more information than the law requires. Therefore, it was certainly possible for Mr. Lloyd or for his solicitor, reacting to this information, perhaps to conclude that they ought to look rather more widely into the situation. When a search of this kind is made, it is clearly for the solicitor to confine his inquiries to the particular site in question—there is no obligation to inquire about adjacent property—but on the evidence, this sort of reply from the city council should at least have triggered off in the minds of those concerned the possibility that they should look into this matter further.

Mr. Heffer

My constituent asked his solicitor what the position was, whether he had anything to worry about, and he was told not. It could be that the solicitor, even having got this information, did not recognise that these garages would be right next to my constituent's house. Therefore, I want to make it clear that my constituent knew absolutely nothing about this until the garages were put up.

Mr. Griffiths

That is as may be ; of course, I have no knowledge of the relations in this matter and I would not wish to comment on them for one moment. I was only saying on behalf of the city council, since it had been brought into this matter, that this is its reply to the questionnaire. The site map, which I can only conclude was available at least to the solicitor, might well have led a person like the hon. Gentleman or myself, in purchasing that property, to look into the matter fairly thoroughly. So the city council has given a good deal of information—indeed, more than it strictly needed to do.

If Mr. Lloyd or his solicitor, on the basis of the information, had made further inquiries, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the planning law provides both for development plans and for registers of applications for planning permission to be made available for public inspection. Mr. Lloyd could, of course, have seen them, as they are maintained by law by the city council. He would then have been able to find in the register the record of the planning permission for the whole estate, and to learn of the proposed garages.

Mr. Heffer

The point made by Mr. Lloyd and by me is that the initiative then has to be on his shoulders. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, the information should have been given to him in any case—

Mr. Griffiths

By whom?

Mr. Heffer

By the city council, which had given permission for the area to be developed, or by the developers themselves.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member may say that, but there is some responsibility on a citizen who is purchasing property to be vigilant in his own interests. The principle of caveat emptor must apply in the case of housing purchase as well.

The hon. Member raised in his correspondence and today the question of whether or not Mr. Lloyd's consent was required before the garages were erected. There is no legal requirement that that should be done, and the fact that the land was vacant when he bought his house does not of itself mean that it would always remain vacant.

There are cases in which the consent of a householder is required for a particular development—for example, for the establishment of a cemetery—an advertisement in the Press is required for a ballroom or a sewage works—wherever there is what is technically known as a "bad neighbour" development—but garages do not come into that category. Even if they did, the matter would not arise, because the permissions had been given five years before and it was perfectly open to Mr. Lloyd and his solicitor to discover the position.

I have no wish to appear unsympathetic to Mr. Lloyd and I know that the appearance of buildings on a site which he had assumed would not be developed was a shock. I appreciate that it must have been doubly disagreeable to have them so close to the wall of his house. However, I hope that he can be reassured, because the fire officer has been consulted and has said that this does not amount to a fire risk.

But since the hon. Member has reflected to some extent on the city council, I am bound to say in fairness to it that there is nothing wrong with the development itself on planning grounds, that this development did not require Mr. Lloyd's consent and that his solicitors were given information by the council which should have brought the problem to light. I have investigated the case—that was the hon. Member's first point—I have examined whether the existing law would justify any intervention by the Secretary of State on grounds of broad public policy, and I cannot see that justification.

I heard what the hon. Member said about a local ombudsman, but, as he knows, that would require legislation. The Government are sympathetic, but this is not the time to discuss it. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said——

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.