HC Deb 18 October 1976 vol 917 cc1079-88

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

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the purchase by the Greater London Council of Broadmead, Broad Lane, Hampton, in my constituency.

Broadmead is just one site, but its future concerns far more people than its immediate neighbours. If a high density development is permitted, Broadmead could be used as a precedent for high density developments throughout the village of Hampton as and when other sites become available. Therefore, decisions on this site could trigger off a change in the face of the district by the end of the century, or sooner.

Broadmead is a large Victorian house set in a garden of 1¾ acres. Two old ladies sold it to a private developer. Of course, the image of developers is not, by and large, attractive to everyone. I read the other day a poem by Sir John Betjeman, the Poet Laureate, which begins, I am a young executive, No cuffs than mine are cleaner, I have a slimline brief case, and I use the firm's Cortina. He goes on to vandalise what should be cherished.

In the case of Broadmead, the developer was not like that. His scheme was good. The Victorian house was to be turned into 11 flatlets for elderly people, under the auspices of the Richmond-upon-Thames Churches Housing Trust. I strongly support this scheme. It remains the intention of the Richmond-upon-Thames Churches Housing Trust to carry this out, provided that squatters who have invaded the house can be evicted. This is due to take place tomorrow morning.

Incidentally, I believe that the law on squatting should be reformed, and quickly, although that is somewhat outside the scope of the debate tonight.

As to the rest of the site, the developer was to build 11 private houses, for which the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council had given planning permission. However, under the Community Land Act the GLC gave notice of its intention to buy compulsorily. The developer, who had been ready to build at once and who had, I believe, bought the land partly with borrowed money, could not afford, at current interest rates, to wait. This morning, I heard that he had agreed to sell the land to the GLC; in effect, the GLC had forced him to sell the land to it.

I suggest that the Community Land Act was not basically intended for the purchase of such a small site, and when obviously the builder was poised ready and intending to get on with building. Indeed, he could not have afforded to do otherwise. However, the Community Land Act has served in this instance only to notify the GLC of the existence of the site. After serving notice under the Act, the GLC apparently intends to proceed under other housing powers which it has long possessed.

The GLC says that it intends to build 29 units of housing instead of 11. But they would take far longer to build. The GLC's current land stock is enough for 42,000 houses and flats. That is about eight years' supply at the GLC's current building rate in London. If the GLC is affected by the current financial cuts, which are expected to involve virtually the whole of our economy, it will take it even longer to use up its land bank to build.

The high density which the GLC proposes—including old people's flatlets—of 40 dwellings in 1¾ acres, is totally out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and is strongly opposed not only by the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council but by the Hampton Residents' Association and a large number of individual constituents who have written either to myself or to Mr. George Tremlett, who is the Greater London councillor for the constituency and who has taken up this matter with vigour at County Hall.

I am the first to acknowledge that for many years there has been a shortage of housing in inner London that has amounted to a major social evil. I fully realise that the Under-Secretary, who represents an inner London constituency, will be as conscious of this as anyone, as Member for his constituency, quite apart from his ministerial duties. Indeed, my own political nursery was an inner London constituency at Peckham, which also suffered very severely from the housing shortage, so I know all about it and sympathise deeply with it.

I suggest, on the basis both of the so-called secret report of the London Housing situation published in the Sunday Times this summer, which was said to have circulated within the Department of the Environment, and of the demographic changes, the movement in population, the decline in the birth rate, and so forth, that the shortage can be expected to ease before many years elapse, if it has not begun to do so already.

It is the future for which we are building, because if we build in the late 1970s or 1980s we are building houses or flats which will last 100 years.

The Richmond-upon-Thames borough has played some part in providing housing for people from London. Its record is a good one. From 1966 to 1972, despite its own long waiting list in Richmond-upon-Thames, it offered 10 per cent. of all its vacancies to the Greater London Council. Since 1972 it has agreed to offer 550 houses over six years, which is equivalent to 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of its vacancies and which, if emulated throughout Greater London, would be equivalent to nearly 2,000 lettings a year for the GLC, which, over a decade or so, could make a major dent in the London housing shortage.

However, the Greater London Council has not taken up these vacancies in full. For example, in the current year it has taken up only 50 out of 106 vacancies that have been offered to it by Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council. That is an uptake of less than 50 per cent. I want to know exactly why. If the Greater London Council does not take council tenancies that are offered to it by the outer London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, it greatly weakens the GLC's case for its rape of Broadmead.

Nearby, on the derelict Hampton nursery lands, the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council has a scheme for 1,450 houses. Of these, 370 would be council houses for rent, 240 would be housing association housing for rent, 120 would be council houses for sale, and 720 would be private dwellings. The inquiry into this scheme is due to begin in November. I hope that the Secretary of State will decide following the inquiry without too much delay.

I should like to put four points to the Minister. First, I understand that the Greater London Council will decide on its own planning application for Broad-mead but will have to consult the Richmond Borough Council. If, when the GLC consults Richmond with its planning application, it should become difficult or impossible for the two authorities to agree, would the Secretary of State be willing to call in the application for decision by himself, taking local opinion into account, which the GLC does not seem inclined to do?

Secondly, could more information about the preservation of over 200 Broad-mead trees on which the borough has placed tree preservation orders be given, beyond the rather brief information which the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) sent to me when he was Minister?

Thirdly, will the Minister ask the Greater London Council why it has failed to take up in full lettings of good quality houses which have been offered by the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council? I suspect that the reason has somethings to do with people in inner London not necessarily wishing to move that far out to the periphery of Greater London. In any case, this interacts with the question whether the GLC begins to have a deserving case to seize Broadmead and put upon it a high density development.

Fourthly, will the Minister ascertain what sum of money the GLC intends to pay for the purchase of Broadmead at the ratepayer's expense? I do not see how land can be valued before the density of housing upon the site is known for certain. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough either to comment on these points now or to put his views to me in writing very soon.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify some of the issues associated with the case. First, however, I should say how greatly I appreciate the concern that the hon. Member has shown on behalf of his constituents, both in what he said in his speech this evening and in his earlier letters to my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Planning and Local Government.

At the outset I should say—I think that the hon. Gentleman probably realises it already—that this debate places me in something of a difficulty. It would probably be unwise for me at this stage to attempt to assess or express any views on the merits of this case. I recognise that the hon. Member has given me news, which he kindly communicated to me earlier this evening, that it is possible that the sale of this land by the company in question to the GLC may take place voluntarily. But that has not happened yet. and it is still possible that the case could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision on a compulsory purchase order. Since many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate could be material issues in the consideration of a compulsory purchase order, it would clearly be unwise for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the case that he so eloquently put.

I should make clear also that the matter raised is essentially one for the Greater London Council rather than for the Department of the Environment. For instance, towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech he asked me what sum the GLC expected to pay. Clearly, I cannot answer that question for the Department of the Environment, and it might be unwise for me to try to do so. I imagine that there would be negotiation between the company and the GLC if there were a voluntary sale, and therefore it is not at this stage something that I, or anyone else, I think, could predict.

Mr. Jessel

Would the hon. Gentleman's Department have the right to intervene in this aspect of the matter, taking into account the need to protect ratepayers against any extravagance by the GLC?

Mr. Barnett

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the price, I should need to write to him about that to be absolutely sure of the position. In fact, the matter does not concern me personally but would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend who is concerned with housing matters. I should not like to attempt to give an answer off the cuff. Perhaps the best course would be for me to write to the hon. Gentleman, having sought my right hon. Friend's advice, or ask my right hon. Friend to write directly to the hon. Gentleman with any advice that he may be able to give.

Although the GLC has issued a notice of intention to acquire Broadmead, the council has not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, informed the Department that it has resolved to make a compulsory purchase order anyway, and, so I gather from what the hon. Gentleman has said, it is conceivable that no CPO will be made. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given I think that it would not be wise for me to get too involved in the merits or otherwise of the case. However, I wish to review the background of the case and try to clarify one or two issues.

As the hon. Gentleman explained, the story starts with the purchase in March 1976 of the two properties in Hampton by a private developer who wished to retain the two existing houses and use the rest of the land for residential development. This was followed by the submission of a planning application for the site by the developer, Nightingale Developments Limited, on 1st May this year.

As the hon. Member explained, under the arrangements applicable to the Community Land Act, the authorities concerned, Richmond Borough Council and the Greater London Council, had to decide whether the proposed development was relevant development—that is, significant development falling within the main scope of the Community Land Scheme—and, if it was relevant development, whether they wished to seek to acquire the land if planning permission was granted. Both councils decided that the application was for relevant development. However, while Richmond issued a notice of intention not to acquire the site provided the development was started within one year of the grant of planning permission, the GLC issued a notice of intention to acquire.

This meant that when Richmond granted outline planning permission for the development, which it has now done, that permission was suspended for a period of 12 months, to give the GLC time to seek to acquire the land, either by agreement or by making a compulsory purchase order. Within this time, it is open to the GLC to consider whether it wishes to proceed to take steps towards acquisition of the land or, notwithstanding having served a notice, to decide not to acquire the land. If it were to decide to make a compulsory purchase order there would of course be opportunities to object to the order, and the matter would probably come to the Secretary of State for decision. If it were to decide not to acquire the land, it would have a duty to notify its change of intention and the planning permission granted would cease to be suspended.

It has been suggested, I believe at one stage by the hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State should use his power of direction under Schedule 6 of the Community Land Act. I should like to deal with that point, because it is something over which there may have been confusion in the past. Apart from the view expressed on all sides in Committee during the passage of that Act—and I took part in the Committee stage—that the power should not be used in particular cases, I am bound to say that even if the Secretary of State were to use that power it could not affect the notice of intention to acquire which the GLC issued in June. The reason is that this power cannot be used retrospectively.

The matter is entirely one for the GLC, and I understand that its proposals are to acquire the land for its own housing purposes. I should point out that the GLC could have sought to acquire this site for its own housing long before the Community Land Scheme, which is essentially concerned with land for private development, had come into being.

What the Community Land Act has done is to bring the acquisition issues out at an earlier stage because of the procedures for suspending planning permission. Thus, as indicated in paragraph 33 of Community Land Circular 6, the assurances that have been given, particularly to builders and developers, do not constrain the powers that local authorities have long possessed to acquire land for their own or other public purposes—a fact that is perhaps not as widely appreciated as it might be.

I am glad to take this opportunity to state that the assurances that we have given, particularly to builders and developers, remain valid within the scope of the Community Land Scheme. For instance, where developers or builders bring forward land for early or timely development, local authorities will in normal circumstances not be expected to intervene.

If the GLC were to resolve to make a compulsory purchase order it would have a choice of powers—Section 15 of the Community Land Act or Part V of the Housing Act 1957. As already stated in Circular 30/76, para 36, my right hon. Friend would have regard to the same factors in either case. In other words, he would consider any order in the light of Government housing policies. It has been made clear in various published statements that in considering the compulsory acquisition of land for public sector housing the Secretary of State requires to be satisfied not only of the authority's general housing need but of its need to acquire the order site, and the timing of its proposed development would be relevant in addition or in preference to other sites already in its ownership.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points on this issue, but I hope he will understand the reason why I cannot comment on those points.

The wide-ranging requirements involved in satisfying the GLC's strategic housing role must also be recognised, but the council's arguments in favour of acquisition would have to be weighed against those of any objectors who may not wish to see the site redeveloped at all, or who may have alternative proposals for its redevelopment.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific issues which I should at least mention in fairness to him. The main one, in regard to the allocation made to the GLC on the Hampton nursery lands, is something that may be material to the case and, therefore, it would not be right for me to say anything about it. The hon. Gentleman raised a specific issue about the possibility of a dispute that might arise in the future between the GLC and the Richmond Borough Council with regard to the shape of development that should take place on this piece of land. Under those circumstances it would be open to the Richmond Council to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend, and he would have to decide whether to intervene, and whether to attempt to mediate between these councils on this issue.

The question of a tree preservation order has also been raised. I should like to mention that the Richmond Borough Council has made it, and it includes the trees at Broadmead.

If no objections are made and sustained the order will come to the Secretary of State for confirmation and it will be treated strictly on its merits. It might, however, be relevant to point out that a tree preservation order cannot prevent any development for which planning permission has been granted.

It is now up to the GLC to decide what further action it wants to take. I expect that there will be further local discussion on this question, and I hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached for the benefit of the community at large, and the hon. Member's constituents in particular. I think the House will agree, however, that these matters should be left in local hands. If this matter were to come before the Secretary of State in the form of a compulsory purchase order, the House can be assured that he would take all relevant aspects into consideration in reaching a decision. If the hon. Member wishes, I shall be glad to draw the attention of the GLC to this useful and timely debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.