HC Deb 26 October 1983 vol 47 cc401-8

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

11.51 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Although it is nearly midnight, I am glad to have this opportunity to mention some of the difficulties that arise in respect of ground consolidation projects in Glasgow.

Redevelopment in various parts of Glasgow has for some years been hampered by the legacy of mineral workings in the city. There are many parts of the city that are not designated as housing action areas where, nevertheless, ground settlement problems are experienced by property owners. However, the main burden of my remarks concerns the specific problems in housing action areas. Although the extent of mineral workings in the city is largely known, there are areas where they remain to be discovered, and where it is necessary to carry out test bores and other investigations so that property owners and the various statutory bodies are alerted to the need for necessary action.

Mr. Ian Stevens, formerly an honorary research fellow at Strathclyde university department of mining and petoleum engineering, has for a number of years made a special study of this subject and prepared a series of maps. I have a map showing the extent of mineral workings within the Maryhill constituency, but other parts of the city are much more troubled. I cite, for example, Hillhead, Springburn, Shettleston and the Govanhill area where there has been a series of problems.

I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation regarding funding the necessary investigation work. There can be a lengthy period while initial survey work is undertaken. Particular problems can arise if the mineral valuer has a suspicion about an area and decides that there might be a need for consolidation work to be done. Moreover, much time can be taken in undertaking the necessary researches and examination of the journals and other evidence of settlement problems.

The Minister will be aware of the correspondence and of the questions that I have asked the Scottish Office and his predecessors for some time now. I refer to the problem that Springburn and Possilpark housing association has had with a corner property at Balmore Road and Saracen Street. The property could be saved and rehabilitated. The residents certainly want that. Glasgow district council put forward a grant opplication for urban aid support from the Scottish Ofice, but it was turned down. As a result, the possible early rehabilitation of that property has been delayed. That property is now in the Springburn constituency as a result of boundary changes and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) is anxious to pursue the matter.

Not long ago, I wrote to the Minister about the problem facing the Queen's Cross housing association and its plans for the St. George's Cross area of the city. The Minister was asked to visit those tenement properties in Maryhill Road and St. George's Road. He has intimated to me that the Housing Corporation will follow up the matter. The building could be developed and rehabilitated. At present it is not only an eyesore, but it provides intolerable conditions for those who occupy it. As the Minister will know, St. George's Cross is a key area in Glasgow. It is a focal point which it is important to preserve.

For some years the Park community council has been concerned about the future of several tenement buildings in the East Woodlands area of the city because of some old mineral workings. Rehabilitation plans may well be put at risk in that prime inner city area unless the Government accept responsibility for the necessary consolidation work. I could cite several other examples. The point is that Glasgow has a sufficient number of gap sites without allowing the creation of more through inaction.

The Government have been acting rather like Pontius Pilate in relation to the public sector. Several local authority properties may well have to be demolished because of soil stabilisation problems. The Scottish Office refuses to approve any urban aid applications that Glasgow district council submits to stabilise properties in the public sector. It is not always old coal mines that create the problems. In the Possilpark area some properties are at risk because they were built on black ash in the 1920s and 1930s. There are now settlement problems, which are making all sorts of difficulties for the tenants and the local authority.

Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between the public and private sectors. The old mine workings know no distinction between one side of the street and the other when it comes to the private, public or voluntary sectors.

I understand that Govanhill housing association took legal advice some time ago about the responsibility of owner-occupiers. It was pointed out that it could be argued that private owners are not responsible for the mineral workings below them. I understand that this has not been tested in the courts, but it means that the Government should accept that they have some responsibility.

Many small shopkeepers in tenement buildings are already having to struggle to keep their businesses going and to pay their share of common repairs to maintain the safety of residential properties above them. The Government's crass announcement last week on house improvement grants is a considerable blow to these people as it is to many owner-occupiers in the tenements above. It is a considerable betrayal of the owner-occupiers so soon after the June general election and the Conservative party manifesto. I know that the Minister, in his other capacity as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, will know what was in it off by heart. It stated: Housing Improvement grants have been increased…and will continue to play an important role. Paradoxically, the action that the Government announced last week will force more owner-occupiers to sell their property so that some other body can undertake the remedial work. That will run counter to the Government's declared intention of extending home ownership.

In addition to answering the question that I asked about the necessary preliminary work, I hope that the Minister will comment on the guidance note that the Housing Corporation is to issue to housing associations about procedures. It seems to me that it will merely clarify what we know about current procedures rather than resolve the problem of who pays for the ground consolidation.

The Minister and his predecessor pointed out to me that section 29(2)(d) of the Housing Act 1974 contains provisions that could help. However, problems arise where the housing association does not have total ownership of the fiats. I suggest that, in the light of last week's discouragement over improvement grants, greater problems will face housing associations which have a minority, or even a majority, of the tenemental flats.

Who pays for the infilling costs where it is necessary to undertake ground consolidation is a political question. The response to that geological fact of life must come from the Government.

I hope that the Government will act in one, two or more ways to atone for last week's announcement on improvement grants. It would be straightforward if the Scottish Office would agree to a more positive response to urban aid applications from Glasgow district council in respect of housing action areas.

I believe that there is a happy precedent for Priesthill where, as a result of partnership between Glasgow district council and Barratt builders, part of the existing council stock will be rehabilitated and an open area developed with Barratt completing new houses and receiving urban aid assistance and improvement grants. That old helicopter gets around.

Another approach would be if the Scottish Development Agency were permitted by the Scottish Office to help in ground consolidation in residential areas. As I understand it, the London dockland area is much assisted in that respect by the development corporation with 100 per cent. development grants. I believe that the Department of the Environment tends to work through local authorities in England because there is no equivalent to the Scottish Development Agency. I hope that the Scottish Office will make a positive response to this tremendous problem.

It was interesting that just before the debate started we were considering aspects of North sea oil development. I suspect that the Minister has other responsibilities here and that in time we shall find that there are settlement problems on the sea bed as a result of oil exploration in the North sea that may well create future coastal erosion difficulties, but that is wide of the mark in tonight's debate.

The Minister has a responsibility to help Glasgow overcome some of the physical problems created by coal mining in the last century, to minimise much of the red tape that has been created, and to resolve administrative and practical problems that arise where ground consolidation work is necessary.

12.5 am

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising tonight a question that is of practical significance to many residents of tenements scheduled for improvement. The thought of discussing the consolidation of oil wells in the North sea is one that fills me with dread, and I am glad that my responsibilities tonight extend only as far as the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

The general problem of ground affected by mineral workings became an issue in the Glasgow eastern area renewal project some two or three years ago. The officer level management group of GEAR discussed the relative advantages and disadvantages of developing ground affected by old workings and the extent to which ground consolidation measures were necessary. A paper prepared for the management group explored the options of dealing with such ground. This paper has now been made generally available because of its relevance in other parts of Scotland. The paper suggests that in areas where ground stability is affected by old mineral workings an appropriate development strategy need not necessarily involve preventive measures, such as ground consolidation, as a matter of course, but could instead assess the risk of eventually losing a small percentage of investments and accept that economic risk where it is reasonable to suppose that the cost will, in the long run, be less than that of preventive measures. It notes that alternative measures to consolidation may represent a better investment in particular cases—for example, the insertion of jacking points in the foundations.

I make no apology for stressing this apparently theoretical stance at the outset. It is all too easy for those involved in developments to presume an overwhelming public interest in ensuring that their particular site is developed according to their initial plan—regardless of ground conditions and the cost of dealing with them. Land is not in short supply in Glasgow, and we must not slavishly adhere to historic patterns of development if that involves a heavy price.

We also need to be clear, I think, that the holes under Glasgow do not belong to the Scottish Office. There must be no presumption that it is the Secretary of State's duty to equalise the development costs of all sites in the city. Some sites are too expensive to develop, and it is better that everyone should accept that at the outset.

The hon. Member has asked about the position on the funding of technical investigative work which is required to be carried out in connection with the possible need for site consolidation in regard to a particular scheme.

Investigative work of this kind is part of the work which requires to be carried out by an association in assessing the viability of a project before capital expenditure, whether on the acquisition of unimproved properties or on development works, is committed. Where adequate information on undermining is not already in existence and available to the association, an up-to-date report may well be required and the cost of this may be met in a number of different ways. The district council may for example agree to fund the cost as part of the work that the housing association is performing as its agents in assessing the prospects of viable rehabilitation works being carried out in a given instance. Such help as this may be particularly necessary for the association that does not have funds of its own available for the purpose.

Where further survey work requires to be carried out at a later stage in relation to a particular tenement block as part of the design of a detailed rehabilitation scheme, then the professional costs involved will count along with other consultants' fees, as part of the capital cost of that particular scheme. These arrangements apply to survey work carried out in connection with the planning of housing association projects where professional fees may be incurred and I have no indication that they are not adequate for the purpose of meeting consultants' costs which deal with engineering as opposed to constructional aspects of a scheme.

Mr. Craigen

rose—

Mr. Ancram

If I can finish what I have to say, I may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.

If a detailed case for applying different arrangements is put to me I will certainly consider it, but I must make it clear that all capital costs in connection with consolidation works, including the costs of survey work, must be justifiable on the basis of the viability test applied to rehabilitation schemes generally. The hon. Gentleman may feel on the basis of what I have said that he might like to write to me on the matter.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

rose—

Mr. Ancram

If I am to cover all the questions asked, I had better continue with my speech.

In regard to sites occupied by residential buildings, the most obvious problem is as the hon. Gentleman said, that undermining of tenements is in many cases threatening their useful life for the future and raising problems both about the economics of remedial works and responsibility for funding them.

The role of housing associations in carrying out comprehensive tenement rehabilitation schemes in Glasgow has been fully described in the hon. Gentleman's remarks I need not elaborate on that, except to pay my tribute to the great contribution that they, and other associations elsewhere in our urban communities, are making to the revitalisation of areas where otherwise people would be faced with loss of their homes through clearance or living in unsatisfactory circumstances until the inevitable occurred.

That said, I should make the point clearly that the undermining of tenements is not something that has until now held back progress in comprehensive rehabilitation to any significant extent. Most of the Glasgow associations have been able to proceed with full programmes involving tenements that have not required ground consolidation or other remedial measures of that kind. The volume of current and recent spending by community-based housing associations in Glasgow speaks for itself. Since 1979 more than £120 million has been invested by them in rehabilitation in the city, and the Housing Corporation is planning to spend a further £40–£50 million for that purpose in the present financial year.

Substantial budgets have thus been allocated to at least a score of community-based associations in Glasgow, in most cases as an increasing scale in recent years particularly. The result is that associations have now completed some 9,000 rehabilitation units in the city, more than half of those in the past four to five years. It would be quite wrong to claim that site consolidation problems had reduced the impetus of that remarkable programme, though there have, of course, been difficulties for individual associations, as I am well aware.

Mr. Craigen

The Minister said that it is not a great problem. Is he saying that if there is a big problem we may have to write off substantial parts of the city on economic grounds because the Government will not lift the tar?

Mr. Ancram

As I said earlier, we must study the economics of each case for remedial work.

The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the urban aid programme and the SDA. Glasgow district has argued for some time that consolidation works should be financed through the urban programme, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always resisted that. The urban programme should not be deployed as a back-door housing grant. Any consolidation costs must form part of a single investment appraisal. One area where the programme does have an important contribution to make, however, is in assisting councils to dispose of land for private development. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, Glasgow district already has urban programme approval to the carrying out of consolidation works at a site in Priesthill. Ground consolidation is therefore not only a question of stabilising existing buildings. Indeed, I would say that it is equally a question of preparing derelict land for development, some of which may also be undermined.

The SDA has powers under section 8 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 to acquire derelict land and carry out works on it, to enable it to be brought into use or to improve its appearance. I understand that officials of Glasgow district and of the agency are having discussions about opportunities for the agency to exercise these powers—not simply to create public open space, but to enable development to take place on the land. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the agency discusses its proposed land renewal programmes with local authorities as a matter of course, to get a local view of the priorities for the limited resources available. Costs and returns need to be carefully assessed in each instance, of course, but in principle I can see much to be gained by the judicious use of the SDA's powers to prepare suitable brownfield sites for sale to private housebuilders. Indeed, the point has arisen in recent discussions between officials of SEPD and the SDA.

Mr. Dewar

rose—

Mr. Ancram

I have a limited time in which to speak and there are a number of other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised and which I hope to cover. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will allow me to continue.

It is important to distinguish this sort of activity from the consolidation of ground on which housing already stands. As I have said already, site consolidation costs, where they arise as a legitimate cost for a housing association, have to be evaluated as an integral element of the whole rehabilitation project. There is no point in seeking to use the SDA as a new sort of housing improvement body. That is not desirable, as the agency's principal focus must continue to be as an economic development agency. Residential land is "in use" already, of course, and in any case I would certainly not want to see the agency acquiring tenemental properties. The housing corporation has, as I have said, full delegated power to approve housing association rehabilitation costs, and there is every merit in dealing with this issue through a single body.

With schemes carried through by housing associations, costs require approval before tenders are accepted in order that grant may be paid once the work is completed. Before 1 October 1982, responsibility for cost approvals was discharged by my Department, with costs up to a certain limit being subject to approval by the corporation on the basis of delegation. Since that date, the corporation has had full delegated powers to approve costs, subject only to the need for them to comply with guidance of a general nature provided by my Department. The form and content of that guidance are critical to the future handling of this problem.

The point which my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), tried to make plain in the answers that he provided to questions from the hon. Member earlier this year was that site consolidation costs, where they arise as a legitimate cost for a housing association, should be seen as part of the cost of the whole rehabilitation project. On that basis, there is no funding issue separate from that of general funding for rehabilitation projects and no assessment of cost separate from the overall assessment of the viability of rehabilitation in the case of a given block, or wider scheme, which should precede any commitment of funds.

The housing corporation needs a framework against which it can proceed to consider individual projects involving expenditure on consolidation. The end product of excessive recent consultation is a guidance note for housing associations which is designed to indicate in what circumstances consolidation costs will be accepted for the purpose of scheme approval and subsequent payment of grant. That is the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. This note is, I understand, on the point of being issued by the housing corporation. Meanwhile, it has been applying the principles agreed in consultation with my Department, and another scheme has been approved recently on this basis. One of the earlier approvals was in Firrhill Street, Maryhill, which is in the hon. Member's constituency.

In the recent consideration there has been a need to consider legality, the payment of housing association grant. My Department has been able to confirm to the housing corporation that section 29 of the Housing Act 1974—the provision under which the purposes of the grant are defined — enables payment to be made to associations in respect of any necessary costs of a rehabilitation project, including non-recoverable costs in respect of properties not in the ownership of the association where owners decline to contribute to their share of the costs and cannot be forced to do so, either because of the housing action area resolution or otherwise. In such cases, however, it will clearly be necessary for the association to be fully satisfied that the work is necessary to secure the association's investment in the block. That is a precondition of the grant being payable at all.

The questions that arise are not, however, limited to the legal powers to pay grant. It must be shown that the work to be carried out is necessary for the rehabilitation of the block, close or other group of houses.

In projects where an association does not have full ownership, the guiding principle is that it should expect to do no more than meet its own share of the costs, nothwithstanding any role it may have in co-ordinating the rehabilitation of the project area as a whole. It is recognised, however, that there may be cases where the association has a substantial holding in the property, short of full ownership, and there can be a case for approval of payment of other owners' costs for site consolidation to project the association's interest— for example, when part of a block where the association wishes to improve houses in its ownership has a number of other owners and the stability of both groups of houses is threatened. This approach would, of course, be less and less appropriate as the proportionate share held by an association diminished.

Mr. Craigen

The Minister is encouraging housing associations to build more flats for sale.

Mr. Ancram

I am aware of the demands that I am making through the Housing Corporation and housing associations. When I met the Federation of Housing Associations the other day I made it clear that the Government believe that the associations play an important role.

Before that interruption, I was talking about the approach which will be less and less appropriate as the proportionate share held by an association diminished. In such a case it would be necessary for the association to produce evidence to show that the work involved is necessary to secure its own investment in the block and that the private owners who do not wish to join with the association on a voluntary basis cannot readily be shown to have legal liability to pay—either under the common law or arising from the requirements that they themselves have to meet in relation to conformity with the tolerable standard on account of the housing action area declaration.

In the case where an association has no ownership in a block there will, of course, be no power to pay any grant on consolidation costs, and the appropriateness of paying grant—

The Question having been proposed after Ten 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 at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.