HC Deb 01 August 1984 vol 65 cc380-5

1 pm

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

I welcome this opportunity to draw attention to the concern expressed by residents in stable, settled communities in my constituency about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's proposals for redevelopment in East Antrim. Following publication of the proposals and the phoney consultation exercise, improvement work has ceased in the areas blighted by the proposals. Despite widespread opposition from residents, with the full backing of Carrickfergus and Larne borough councils, the Housing Executive seems determined to bulldoze its proposals through. The situation is a recipe for conflict. Farcical consultation which ignores democratically expressed wishes and the views of elected representatives at both district council and Assembly level will ultimately bring law-abiding citizens on to the streets to defend their rights against the 1984-style Big-Brother-knows-best tactics of the non-democratically constituted Housing Executive.

Consultation with local councils and residents is utterly unreal. The planners and designers employed by the Housing Executive no longer have the major new-build projects of recent years to work on, so to remain fully employed they are now directing all their energies to producing redevelopment proposals for areas with older housing. The proposals are presented to councils and residents for so-called consultation, but the new grand scheme is defended at every stage by Housing Executive officers, who disregard local opinion and even alternative proposals. Because the Housing Executive controls the award of improvement and repair grants, all progress is halted until the executive achieves its objective of ultimate demolition.

I give notice today that if the Housing Executive's proposals for my area are not withdrawn they will be fought through the Housing Council and the board of the Housing Executive. I shall not predict today what action councillors, Stormont Assembly Members or Northern Ireland Members of Parliament may be forced to take to show their support for the residents and the rights of owner-occupiers to keep their property and to obtain the same modernisation grants as are available to others in the self-same street.

Owner-occupiers represent about 90 per cent. of the people affected. The elderly are fearful and young newlyweds who have purchased older properties as a first home have had their hopes dashed. Some have been trapped into paying both a mortgage and rent to the Housing Executive. Those who wish to sell cannot find buyers. As the value of their property declines due to the uncertainty, they lose sight of their earlier hopes of moving to better quality housing in the private sector. The elderly, who fear that they will have to move, spend sleepless nights when they should be able to spend their well-earned retirement in peace.

I firmly and sincerely believe that if the improvement and repair grants had not been stopped in those areas the Housing Executive would have had no justification for its demolition and redevelopment proposals. It has even been forced to withdraw a substantial number of these houses to achieve a sufficient level of unfitness to support its proposals at a public inquiry.

I contend that there is no need for the Housing Executive's redevelopment schemes in my area, which have forced community groups to establish housing action areas in Ellis street, Carnhill walk and Agnes street in Carrickfergus and in the many scheduled redevelopment areas in Larne. In view of the time, I shall not list them all as the Minister is aware of them. At present, the majority of those houses are unfit because of the withdrawal of grants and the lack of action by a small number of landlords who own a small proportion of the affected properties, some of which were deliberately purchased with a view to later development for commercial use. In the Larne harbour area, for example, the harbour board purchased a number of houses as a matter of forward planning, making them available to caretaker tenants. I have asked the board to reconsider whether it wishes to be involved in housing, given the extensive land that it holds for future development, and it has now agreed to consider the future of its houses and the possibility of making them available for sale.

I appreciate the interest shown by the Minister today. Unlike the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), I am confident that this Minister will be around for some time despite any reshuffles that may occur. It is thus with some confidence that I put this case to him on behalf of my constituents. I hope that he will recognise the basic desire of people in my area to own their homes and to live within their means. Every home, however humble, deserves basic amenities. The people of Northern Ireland were enraged when a former Prime Minister referred to them as spongers. My constituents are not spongers, nor are other people in Northern Ireland. They are entitled to grants which are already made available to their neighbours for the same types of houses so that they, through modernisation, can have their homes removed from the unfitness category listing. The staff of the executive have a cheek to label many of these well-maintained, clean, comfortable homes unfit, while at the same time they withhold the grants necessary to make them fit. The executive is trying to promote rundown properties to prove that its own assessment is correct.

It is a well-known fact that the demand for public housing in Northern Ireland is diminishing. The statistics for vacant public housing alone should direct the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to put its own houses in order. It should speed up maintenance on its own property, concentrate on provision for the single and elderly and replace aluminium bungalows with permanent brick buildings on the same site—instead of causing endless inconvenience to tenants as one improvement scheme to modernise aluminium bungalows follows another.

I want to see evidence in East Antrim of a caring Government who support owner-occupation. The planners of public housing have not always got it right in the past. Planners and builders cannot construct stable communities. The price of further upheaval is too great in human terms in a Province which has already suffered so much.

From 1981 to 1983, of the 174 additional new dwellings in Larne, 16 were provided by the public sector and 158 were private houses. That is clear evidence of the desire to move from public to private sector housing. The executive even admits that progress to reduce unfitness in Larne has been significant. Unfitness could be overcome cost effectively and would leave communities unscarred if only the executive would reintroduce improvement grants soon.

An architect's report on houses in the harbour area deals with some of the oldest houses in the area, including a group of four which are nearly 100 years old. It said: Four houses were visited—two improved, two in their original condition. According to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's standards, that means that there is 50 per cent. unfitness. It continued: Here, as in other areas, walls and roofs were found to be structurally sound and there is no reason why these unimproved properties could not be brought up to the standard of those modernised. It makes sense, for the sake of community stability, to modernise houses. It is cost-effective because approximately three homes can be modernised for the cost of one new building in the public sector. Modernised homes have a long life expectancy, the disruption of communities is avoided, and it is possible to maintain more houses at less public expense.

I urge the Minister to persuade the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to co-operate with public representatives by recognising the well-founded opposition to its proposals. I urge him to encourage the executive to withdraw its present redevelopment proposals for East Antrim and to persuade it immediately to release improvement grants so that rapid progress can be made in modernising homes on its existing sites. I ask him to introduce legislation to require the executive in future to obtain the support of the majority of residents and the elected representatives before proceeding to force through its policies and redevelopment proposals. I also urge the Minister to reconsider the possibility of the immediate demolition of the derelict fiats in Derryhill, Rathcoole, and to take steps to prevent Drumcor Green from reaching the same state of dereliction.

I deplore, as do all right-thinking people, the wanton vandalism by mindless delinquents, who have systematically destroyed property which would cost more than £500,000 to reinstate. It is small comfort that the inherent design faults now justify the demolition of the Derryhill complex. However, the Minister will agree that the vast amount of public housing in Rathcoole is well maintained throughout the estate. Nevertheless, the need to remove that eyesore and its graffiti is urgent. It does not reflect the efforts of good tenants who live nearby and keep their homes and gardens respectable.

The need to replace existing shops is also urgent. We must congratulate the present shopkeepers who strive to serve the community, many of whom are elderly and require convenient shopping facilities. Because, of vandalism, which caused severe flooding and ultimately severe losses, there is a real danger that those shopkeepers will move away. In order immediately to restore confidence, priority should be given to the demolition and rebuilding of the shopping complex, with appropriate parking provision.

Residents in the Derryhill area are opposed to the executive's delaying action. The property has been derelict for three years. The eyesore of Derryhill is an embarrassment to all who live in Rathcoole. The proposals for the area should be given higher priority than the proposals for action for the autumn of 1985. It should be possible to find the £25,000 needed for demolition and to bring forward the alternative shopping development proposals. I trust that the Minister will help the executive to find both the will and the way to do something about that this autumn.

In my constituency we have tried at all levels to use the proper channels to change the executive's proposals, but so far in vain. Considering the authority of the House and of Parliament, I hope that this will be the final effort and that it will be rewarded. I further appeal to the Minister to assist our citizens to achieve justice under bureaucracy.

East Antrim is a good area for investment. I hope the Minister will assure the House that the executive does not discriminate in its investment policy against my law-abiding constituents, who feel hard done by when they see the level of investment in areas influenced by terrorists and paramilitary groups. At times they appear to be given priority. I am firmly assured by a building society that if the decisions are reversed and grants are again made available, it will provide money for private investment in the areas affected.

1.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten)

The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has taken a keen interest in housing developments in Lame and in East Antrim generally, in the House, in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in all his constituency work. He has a deep and genuine concern to produce the best possible housing for his constituents. I hope that I shall always be able to represent my constituents as vigorously and as eloquently as does the hon. Gentleman.

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I share his anxiety for housing, not just in East Antrim, but in Northern Ireland as a whole. To that end, and trying to improve housing conditions as rapidly and substantially as we can, we have made housing the first priority among our social and environmental programmes. We plan to spend about £526 million in gross terms on housing in the current year. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in expressing the hope that I will continue to play a part in the housing programme. As he will appreciate, that is not entirely a matter for me, nor is it even entirely a matter for the Almighty.

The priority that we have accorded to housing, and the consequent size of the programme both under way and under consideration, inevitably means a change very much for the better for many individuals and areas. It can also mean short-term disruption and inconvenience. I accept, too, that it can generate anxiety. Our job is to minimise that anxiety, explain what we are about and, as far as possible, to accommodate local wishes. I shall return to that point in a moment.

Before I concentrate on redevelopment, which is the aspect of our housing programme that is highlighted in the House today, I should say that in Northern Ireland we have a comprehensive housing policy involving the public and the private sectors. The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of the Government demonstrating their commitment to owner-occupation. The record figures for new starts in the private sector are an eloquent testament to that commitment. We have rightly placed rather more emphasis since last autumn, certainly in the public sector, on improvement, rehabilitation and the maintenance of existing stock rather than on new build. I am interested to note that that adjustment in strategy has not drawn any substantial or well-informed criticism. Indeed, the contrary is true.

We have embarked, not on the wholesale destruction of large tracts of existing housing, but on a balanced programme designed to make the most sensible and effective use of the human and financial resources available. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman supports our housing priority in general, and he would also support the shift in strategy during the past year—a shift which owed much to the representations made to the Government and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive by the hon. Gentleman and by his right hon. and hon. Friends.

I accept that redevelopment often causes difficulty for individuals and that opinions can be divided about the merits of some schemes. I also accept that, precisely because of that, it is vital that communications and consultation with local people are as good as possible. The Housing Executive makes every effort to ensure that its consultations are thorough, and the elected representatives in Northern Ireland do an excellent job of providing a channel of communication for their constituents. But however much we try, consultations will never enable us to satisfy all the people all the time. Indeed, consultation will not always produce unanimity of opinion within an area. In my experience, some people believe erroneously that there has been proper consultation only if it finishes with everyone else agreeing with them. There have been cases, not just in housing—although I can think of some recent examples — but in education, health and other areas, where individuals or groups of people who opposed a development at the consultation stage came to support it after the event.

Our objective should be to be honest and realistic in our consultation, not to create expectations which cannot be fulfilled and, where wishes cannot be met, to ensure that the reasons are explained to the best of our ability.

Mr. Beggs

I accept entirely the sentiments that the Minister has just expressed, but I must re-emphasise the fact that the Housing Executive meets those whom it intends to consult only to project its plans. The plans have already been drawn up. Consultation should start long before then, in seeking the views at local level as to what may be the way forward.

Mr. Patten

The executive's efforts to discover from the people of Larne whether they want a housing action area, and how they believe such an area should be worked through, demonstrate its anxiety to have adequate consultation.

The hon. Member for Antrim, East referred specially to Tullygarley in Larne, and I am aware of his longstanding and continuing interest in this topic. He has properly made representations to me about it on several occasions. As he knows, it is for the Housing Executive to consider in the first instance whether to propose redevelopment or to declare a housing action area. It is then for the Department of the Environment to consent if it believes that such a proposal is justified. Those arrangements are right and generally work well. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not wish to short-circuit or reverse those procedures. Indeed, it would be wrong for me to do so. I should be usurping the role of the Housing Executive, which neither I nor may predecessors have believed it right to do.

This matter is central to the present position. The Housing Executive has not declared a new redevelopment area in Larne and, as I understand it, has not come to a firm conclusion on whether there should be redevelopment in the Tullygarley area. Housing Executive officials have taken a comprehensive look at Larne housing. As part of the exercise, they identified about 190 houses from a total stock of more than 6,300 houses as possible candidates for redevelopment. About 115 of that figure of 190 are in the Tullygarley area. As a result of reports from public health inspectors, the Housing Executive's interest has been narrowed further to as small a group as 65 houses which are between 80 and 100 years old. The idea that those houses are in such a condition because of the non-availability of improvement grants stretches the facts some distance beyond breaking point.

Consultation is continuing in Larne, and officers of the Housing Executive have said that they are willing to have further discussion and have provided the Tullygarley residents association with information about the public health inspector's findings. I should point out that, under section 47 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Housing Executive has a duty to declare an area to be a proposed redevelopment area if it is satisfied, first, that at least half of the land is used for housing purposes; secondly, that at least one third of the houses are unfit for human habitation, or dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area; and, thirdly, that it is expedient that the entire area should be redeveloped.

It is that broad question which the executive is currently addressing. Final conclusions have not yet been reached, and formal proposals have not been put to my Department. I must emphasise that. I should not therefore wish to intervene at this stage, as my Department will have to consider whatever proposals are eventually put forward on their merits and in an open and fair-minded way. If we develop as proposed and vesting proceedings are initiated as a result, there will naturally be an opportunity for objections. If objections are received, a local inquiry will be held at which objectors can air their views to an inspector, who in turn will make recommendations to the Department. Whatever is decided, there will be long and full discussions.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be wrong for me to prejudge proposals which have not yet been made. It would be absurd as well as damaging for me to do so. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will find these remarks helpful. I shall bring what he said to the attention of the chairman of the Housing Executive.

The hon. Gentleman made one final point about the Derryhill site at Rathcoole. I have agreed to the demolition of the three-storey block of flats, maisonettes and shops at a cost of £25,000. Demolition and site clearance will commence in the autumn of next year, by which time we hope to have relocated the three shops at present carrying on business in the block. I understand that the executive proposes to provide on the cleared site new terrace housing and shops with car parking provision at a cost of about £310,000. I know how much the hon. Gentleman has pressed that solution, and I am grateful for his interest in it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Mr. Fred Silvester.