§ 10.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House than is necessary because I have in mind the heavy load that has been placed in recent days on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment by the programme before Parliament. But the matter that I wish to raise is very important, and it has been neglected in the past.
My subject is the effect on the environment of delays in planning procedures and public health controls on housing and other properties in urban areas, which causes properties to be left open to vandalism in almost every urban area. In my area of Birmingham there has been continuous vandalism to property for years. At a time when housing property is scarce, every bit of it that is available should be occupied and not left to vandals. Moreover, such property is an eyesore of dilapidation. It is an awful waste of dwellings and vacant land and dereliction resulting from years of delay in planning and other procedures.
It is not my object to criticise my hon. Friend, his Department or the local authorities, which mainly have to carry out the provisions of the housing and other laws in this respect, but rather to try to find out whether the Department has the matter in mind and is trying to do anything about it.
My particular concern is the vandalism resulting from the delays. In many instances, they are not undue delays. Some are, but delays automatically follow from fulfilling the law, with consequent loss of housing accommodation in days of shortage, loss to owners of property, and serious detriment to the environment in almost every urban area. These laws and rules alone are responsible for vandalism on a huge scale. There is little anyone can do about it as long as we have to conform to the laws. Houses would be repaired and occupied without delay were it not for these laws.
I use the instance of a slum house that I bought in Westminster. It was more or less derelict when the previous tenant 884 moved out. I realised at once that unless I could get the repairers into the property very quickly the house would be no use to anybody, and would probably have to be completely destroyed. We know that this has happened in the large urban areas on a large scale.
I got the repairers in quickly on other work that was not concerned with the laws of planning and repair, so that the house was at no time empty and subject to vandalism. That is not always possible. It is easier for an owner-occupier, who is not so dependent upon the local authorities. Clearly the best safeguard against vandalism of housing property is occupation, and it is more a problem for local authority property and tenanted property.
I quote as an example the case of a widow who dies and who is either a tenant or an owner-occupier of the property. She has not wished to modernise the house but rather to live out the rest of her days with it in a condition which is satisfactory to her. Clearly it is an old house, which needs improvement before relet or for sale. There are thousands of that type of house. After the death of the owner or the tenant, in most cases application has to be made for improvement grants and, very often, a planning change, so the property goes into the filing baskets of the local authority. Whether or not there is undue delay, the house remains empty and there is little one can do about it. The vandals move in. In some cases the vandalism is so bad that the house never gets repaired. It is useless to start improvements, and everything has been wasted.
As I say, this applies not in just one or a dozen cases but in hundreds of cases throughout the land, and nearly always in urban areas.
Another example was pointed out to me by a Birmingham owner. It concerned a house suitable for conversion into two flats. Before it was repaired and reconditioned it was valued at £1,800. It was likely to be worth double that, or more, when the job was done. The usual applications were made without any delay, and the various inspectors and the like moved in to consider the situation and consider all the applications that were put before them. Then, of course, the vandals took over. Day after day attempts were made to secure 885 the property, but the floorboards vanished, all the water tanks, piping and fittings were removed, and, finally, the house had to be sold in this vandalised condition for £1,000 to somebody who would move in quickly and get something done about it, disregarding all the laws, rules and regulations, and probably committing an offence. But it did save the house.
It may be said that the public or the police should do something about it. I am not here to criticise the police, but we all know how difficult it is for them to act when there are hundreds of vandalised houses. It is difficult for the police to make sure that the house is not being vandalised even while a police car is passing. Whatever our views about police protection, it is fairly ineffective. Again, I stress that I am not criticising the police.
Whenever we elaborate or increase the housing laws, rules and regulations, these problems become more acute. Many owners abandon all interest in otherwise repairable houses because of the labyrinth of controls.
I have here a letter from the City of Salford which is concerned about this problem. The authority has raised it with the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the letter states that the authority is glad that I am able to raise the matter tonight. Salford proposes to put forward legislation—perhaps in the form of a Private Bill similar to the Private Bill presented by Manchester in 1967—to empower it to have the property boarded up and secured. The property should be occupied, and it will be dealt with in this way only if there is delay in the planning procedure or in the local authority health department. If authority could be given to get on with the job tomorrow there would be no need to board up houses; workmen could come in and get on with the job. So bad is the situation in Salford that sometimes the owners cannot be traced. They are not interested in the property because they know that it will be of no use to them.
I also have a letter from Birmingham Corporation quoting another case, but I will not take up the time of the House with it. It is well established that this is a serious problem. Its seriousness was first brought to my attention by the Birmingham Property Owners' Association, 886 which told me that week after week there were so many cases in Birmingham that I was convinced that some thought must be given to the problem.
The question of the loss to owners who sometimes wish to be owner-occupiers must be considered, and there is certainly a loss of tenanted property Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Department has given any thought to the overall problem, and what he thinks is the possible solution? I am sorry not to be able to be more constructive, and suggest a solution, but emergency legislation may be needed to enable local authorities to get property on the move rather than allow it to be boarded up.
§ 10.23 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) for his courtesy in the brevity of his remarks and for the way in which he explained the care which the Department that I represent brings to the cases placed in front of it. As one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the road programme, I am aware of the problems that he has mentioned. We have the same problem whenever we acquire houses for that programme.
I want to make detailed comments on what my hon. Friend has said and make one or two observations of my own. I will look carefully at the problem to which he has drawn the attention of the House and will follow up the debate by writing to my hon. Friend, setting out my views on the detailed points that he has raised.
This is an important matter. Not only do houses fall into disrepair and become vandalised, but there is a spin-off effect on the neighbourhood. The litter associated with these houses and their general atmosphere can have a most unfortunate effect on neighbouring properties. I certainly take very seriously what my hon. Friend has said.
I want to say a word about the problem as I see it. As a Government, we have to provide a satisfactory framework within which local authorities can operate planning procedures. It would be unthinkable to go back to a situation in which there were no planning procedures. I am sure that it is quite obvious to everybody that the moment controls are imposed 887 they have to be obeyed. Exceptions of the sort that might be tempting in certain genuine cases cannot be allowed, because some people will always find ways of rushing through any loopholes that result from such flexibility.
During the reorganisation of local government we have been reviewing all kinds of controls over local authorities, to ensure that approvals or consents from central Government which may be suggested to be holding up the procedure are scrutinised with a view to their repeal. In the Bill now being examined by a Standing Committee upstairs a whole range of minor controls of the frustrating sort that my hon. Friend would want to see abolished will be abolished. The Bill before the House deals with some of them, but others will have to wait until appropriate legislation comes before the House in which the abolition of the superfluous controls can take place.
One is left with a situation in which the local authorities are essentially responsible for the running of their own affairs and the rôle of central Government is one of offering advice and guidance. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that my Department is very active on this front. We have announced to the House that we propose to give advice to planning authorities on ways in which local planning procedures can be speeded up. In the first place, a memorandum will be put to the local authority associations for discussion. In the light of the consultations that follow we shall issue a circular. We have in mind to dispense with the special period of three months for dealing with cases affecting the Department's trunks roads, which affect houses.
There is no getting away from the fact that there are pressures on the planning machine which tend to lengthen the time taken in reaching decisions. There is a whole range of consultations through which the authorities have to go, and the Department's experience is that the range of consultation is being widened continually, as more and more people seek to come within the framework. Certainly one of the most substantial campaigns that I have witnessed since I became a Member of this House has been the campaign to widen the range for the notification of planning 888 applications. Local government development has gone a long way towards accepting the purpose of that campaign. Further, there is now the need to consult river authorities and the factory inspectorate in their respective fields.
Participation by the public, which is ever more demanded, is very much the sort of thing that is bound to lead to more balances. These balances give a very good idea of the difficulties that the planning authorities face and with them in mind and with the reorganisation of local government pending we certainly intend to look at the whole system of development control. It may be practicable to devise some means of simplifying and streamlining planning procedures, and we shall certainly make every effort to find a way.
In the meantime, we have no alternative but to get the best out of the present system. I know that in Birmingham there is a problem with the conversion of older houses, and the damage and vandalism that occur when houses are left standing for any period before reoccupation undoubtedly raises a problem. Housing associations are among the agencies which carry out these conversions, but a whole range of procedures has to be gone through before they can get on with the job—planning permissions, building regulation approval and, in some cases, approval for improvement grant purposes and loans approval for the acquisition of properties.
The important thing is to ensure that the handling of planning proposals is coordinated with the local authority. There is no doubt that developers can do a great deal to help if they have early discussions with planning authorities. My mind searches in vain for an answer to the case of the elderly widow in owner-occupation who dies, and whose executors have to come in to solve the problems and sort out the difficulties. I do not know how one anticipates a situation of that sort. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my difficulties. Developers can assist a good deal by having informal discussions with the local authorities before drawing up detailed proposals which might, in some crucial way, offend the likelihood of their getting applications at a later date. I do not think that there is any question of unnecessary delay in my Department. My hon. Friend has 889 been generous in making this point for me, and therefore I do not think I need answer it.
I want to say a word about empty houses which are awaiting slum clearance. These present a difficult situation and very much illustrate my hon. Friend's point. Thirty-one authorities have taken power in local Acts under which they can ensure that vacant buildings in clearance areas are made secure. This places the onus on the owner of the building and in other cases empowers the local authority to make the building secure, notwithstanding the fact that the building is still privately owned and is not to be acquired by the local authority. It is desirable for houses to be demolished as soon as possible after families are re-housed, but that is not practicable where individual houses in an area are vacated some time before other families can be rehoused.
About 25 of the larger authorities and six county councils, including districts, 890 have taken local Act powers to meet these situations. The Government will consider taking general powers as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. Where the houses are purchased by the authority they can be made secure, quite apart from such powers.
I have tried to show how, in practice, planning matters are affected by the relationship between developers, local authorities and the Government. I accept the responsibility to provide an adequate framework of legislation and administration. It is fair to stress that only the closest co-operation between applicants, local authorities and, in some cases, departmental branches, can ensure that the system works smoothly. I shall read my hon. Friend's speech with great care and contact him to see whether there is anything further that I can add.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.