§ Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 89, line 13 at end insert
'In section 76(1) of that Act after "direct", there is Inserted "(whether the building is occupied or not)" and after "section 54" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (4).".'.The amendment is entirely concerned with the operation of conservation areas. It corrects an anomaly in present legislation. If one owns a property in a conservation area, one must have planning permission to alter the appearance of the building. One cannot proceed without that planning permission. Similarly, a local authority can take action against a landlord if he transgresses the terms of a conservation area. However, there is nothing in law to cover an owner-occupier if his property is allowed to go to rack and ruin.It may be argued that that should be left to the individual. In that case, we should not have conservation areas. If we have conservation areas, their terms must be applied universally. At the moment that is not the case.
I could show my hon. Friend the Minister examples of that not far from the House. It is a scandal and gives great offence to people who try to comply with the terms of the conservation area and keep their properties in good order and in accordance with the terms laid down for the area. Either the local authorities or English Heritage must have powers to proceed in those cases. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
§ Mr. YeoSection 76 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that section 54 of the Act, which deals with urgent works to preserve unoccupied listed buildings, shall apply to a building in a conservation area as it applies to listed buildings if it appears to him that the preservation of that building is important for maintaining the character or appearance of the conservation area.
Amendment No. 61 would allow the Secretary of State to make a direction on an occupied building. It would ensure that, if a direction is made under section 76 on an 408 occupied building in a conservation area, the local authority could then carry out urgent works on any part of that building, after giving the owner the requisite seven days' notice of its intention. The existing section 54 provides that, if a building is occupied, works may be carried out only to those parts which are not in use.
Section 76 empowers the Secretary of State to make a direction that the powers in section 54, to carry out urgent works to a listed building, shall apply to a specified unlisted building in a conservation area. Such a direction does not require the local authority to carry out the works, but it means that it can do so if it wishes. The effect of the amendment would be that, following a direction by the Secretary of State, the powers available to the local authority for dealing with a particular unlisted building in poor repair would be wider than the powers available to the same local authority for dealing with a listed building. I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend intends in his amendment.
More importantly, the powers in section 54 of the Act are deliberately restricted to unoccupied buildings or, in the case of partially occupied buildings, to those parts which are not in use. These powers are principally aimed at the preservation of listed buildings, and they give local authorities powers to carry out works which appear to them to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a building after giving not less than seven days, notice of the intention to carry out the works. This is potentially a draconian power, and the Government have taken the view that it should not be available in the case of occupied buildings, for obvious reasons related to the invasion of privacy. We have looked into this question from time to time, but the furthest we have been prepared to go is to provide for urgent works to be carried out on the unused parts of partially occupied buildings, and that remains our position. In the light of that—
§ Mr. BenyonWill my hon. Friend confirm that, if such a building is occupied, there is nothing that any authority can do about its appalling state of repair? In such circumstances, is he really happy about the fact that two houses might be completely derelict in a marvellous street of historic houses in an area of great historical and conservation importance?
§ Mr. YeoNo, I cannot say that I am happy—no one would be happy about that—but we must balance our real anxiety about the possible decay of buildings in those circumstances with the attendant risks of giving local authorities powers to enter and occupy buildings regardless of the wishes of the occupant. That is a significant consideration.
As I have said, we have gone as far as giving local authorities the power to deal with the unoccupied portions of partially occupied buildings. There are real reasons for hesitating before giving local authorities the power to move into someone's house to carry out works while chat person is living there, regardless of how urgently those works may be needed. That is why the Government cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
§ Mr. BenyonI am not happy about that, but there is obviously no point in pressing my amendment. However, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think further about this matter, because the position will not get any better; it will only get worse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.