PROVISIONS AS TO CONSENTS REQUIRED BY SECTION 77 (Hansard, 20 May 1980)

§ Mr. Bendall
I beg to move amendment No. 222, in page 53, line 26, at end insert— 384 ' (d) to effect the external appearance of the dwelling house.'. The amendment is aimed at clearing up this area and I see no reason why the Government should not give serious consideration to my suggestion, which concerns the question of the external appearance of a property being changed by a tenant.
Many landlords, while encouraging tenants to carry out repairs and renovations, will be concerned that there could be a large structural alteration to the exterior of a property which could, in the long term, affect its market value. The amendment would make a small improvement and would tidy up the clause.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has pointed to the need for landlords to be able to restrict improvements that materially affect the external appearance of a dwelling. I assure my hon. Friend that I take his point, but I do not believe that it would be helpful to include an extra factor that the court should have to take into account when deciding on the reasonableness of a refusal to consent to an improvement.
385 A landlord has the power to withhold consent if it is reasonable to do so. That is his safeguard. The tenant has the right to challenge the refusal in court. That is an important safeguard for the tenant. The factors listed in clause 78(1) are a guide to the court but not an exclusive list.
My hon. Friend referred to value. The point about the value of the property is already covered within the three matters which it is recommended that a court should take into consideration.
If the landlord has a genuine and good reason for refusing consent, a court may uphold his refusal if it is challenged, whether or not there is an appropriate reference in clause 78. In other words, a court has to take an overall view of reasonableness. Planning consent may be needed for improvements materially affecting the external appearance of a dwelling. Looking at that problem from the tenant's viewpoint, we do not wish to place undue difficulties in the way of a tenant exercising his right. The purpose of part III of the Bill is to give a tenant a range of new freedoms.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Bill adequately safeguards the landlord's position, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Bendall
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ' time ' to ' the ' in line 37.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 66 and 68.

§ Mr. Roberts
These are drafting amendments to protect the position of tenants whose landlords may seek to impose an unreasonable condition in consenting to an improvement. They complement the Government's acceptance of an Opposition amendment in Committee which added what is now subsection (4) to clause 78, making it clear that it is for a landlord to show that a condition he imposes is reasonable.
Amendment No. 65 removes words which are now superfluous. Amendment No. 66 provides that any consent given 386 subject to an unreasonable condition shall be held to have been unreasonably withheld. That is significant, because clause 77 (3) provides that any consent that is unreasonably withheld shall be treated as given. Amendment No. 68 will extend the power of the county court to issue a declaration on the question whether a declaration has been withheld or unreasonably withheld. That would encompass questions about whether the conditions were or were not reasonable because of the equation of unreasonable conditions with unreasonable refusal of consent. In Committee we undertook to bring forward such an amendment.