CROWN ESTATE BILL

HL Deb 20 July 1961 vol 233 cc786-800

3.35 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Continuance of Crown Estate Commissioners, and general provisions as to their constitution and functions

1.—

(3) It shall be the general duty of the Commissioners, while maintaining the Crown Estate as an estate in land (with such proportion of cash or investments as seems to them to be required for the discharge of their functions), to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to subsection (3): the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning. The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading I expressed on behalf of my noble friends some anxiety about some of the duties that this Bill will lay on the Crown Estate Commissioners. I am bound to say that the noble Lord the Minister who replied did not entirely allay those anxieties, and it is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment. We expressed doubt and anxiety that there was a conflict in the duties of the Commissioners. On the one hand, there is their duty to increase the value of the estate, to increase the revenues and get the maximum revenue, and, on the other, the public interest, in the shape of the amenities of the district in which these properties are found.

The noble Lord said that the revenues from the Crown estates go to the Exchequer and therefore, as he said, it is literally true that the increase of the revenues redounds to the public benefit. But surely the noble Lord would not consider that revenue for the Exchequer would always compensate for the loss of amenity and the damage to the æsthetic aspect of the properties. It is precisely this conflict that surely was at the bottom of the legislation that has been in force for a number of years now and is generally accepted under the planning Acts. There is control of advertisement, very strict control, as many of your Lordships will know. Even the smallest advertisement that an owner or occupier wishes to put up outside his shop or building or on his property has to have the consent of the planning authority; and so far as my experience goes, planning authorities are by no means ready to give this permission except under strict control and in strictly limited form. But the Crown do not have to obtain consent of the planning authorities. The Bill, as we have seen, charges the Commissioners with the duty—and this is in Clause 1 (3): to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from the estate. Further on, in Clause 3 (1), they are required when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any land to get the best possible price for it. Here is the clash.

I do not know exactly what the Commissioners' properties in London consist of, but we know they have a very large interest in London. We know that 75 per cent, of the total revenues arise from the rents of London properties. But properties outside London are listed in the Report on Crown Lands which was published in 1955. I should like just to remind your Lordships of what some of these properties are. We read that at Hampton Court there are 28 acres, mainly business and residential property; in Berkshire there is land at Ascot, including Ascot Race Course. There is a lot of land at Swinley, including two golf courses. At a very well-known holiday resort and beauty spot called Symond's Yat, on the River Wye, they own six acres and a fishing hotel; and they own common land at Egham, land at Bagshot, and here and there all over England shops and other residential property.

It is easy to see that potential tenants of that property would be prepared to pay a great deal more if they had the right to let part of the site for advertising purposes. Indeed, the Commissioners themselves could raise considerable revenues, even in the case of buildings they keep in their own occupation, by letting the advertising sites. And, of course, it is not only buildings, as we know, that can earn revenue from advertising; in the countryside advertisements are put up on agricultural or any other land. In fact, I think it is the opinion of many people that much of the attraction of the country and of the towns and villages is lost because of advertisement.

Now I am sure we should not suspect that Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and the present Commissioners would be guilty of such a lapse of taste as that, but this Bill is going to pass into law and, in the course of years, and in the course of changes of personnel and staff, there might be people who will take their duties literally and do their utmost to perform their task of increasing the revenue and the value of the estate. It is for that reason that we propose to add, at the end of subsection (3), after it says that their duty is to maintain and enhance its value and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management", the additional words, the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning". I cannot see that anyone can object to that addition to and qualification of the duties of the Commissioners, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("the preservation of the amenity of the respective areas in which such estates are situated and to the principles of sound town planning.")—(The Earl of Lucan.)

3.42 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

In support of this Amendment, I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said. My noble friend has referred to the possibility of advertisements being put up. I would go further. One of the estates owned by the Crown Commissioners is Ascot Racecourse. Under this Bill, theoretically—I do not suggest for a moment that this would happen, but theoretically—there is nothing to prevent the Crown Commissioners from deciding themselves to put up a block of flats or a block of offices or some other type of building, which obviously would be quite inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood and quite contrary to the principles of good town planning. I admit that they would have to do it themselves. I believe that if they were to let the site to a private developer, that private developer would have to get planning permission; but there is nothing to prevent the Commissioners from themselves putting up buildings. In fact, they do so in certain circumstances; and when they do that they are exempt from planning requirements.

We therefore suggest that there should be this obligation upon them, not only to have due regard to the requirements of good management (which, of course, means that they have to conduct their properties in such a way that they do not become disreputable, and we have had some experience of that in the past in connection with Church Commissioners' property), but that they should also have regard to proper town planning considerations—in other words, that they should behave as I would submit every good property owner in the past has behaved. Far instance, if some of the owners of the large London squares which we still cherish, and which we hope will be preserved for a very long time, had decided that they were going to make the maximum amount of profit out of it, they could have found remarkable ways of carrying out development which would have lost us the amenity of these squares. But they have behaved as good public citizens, and have conducted themselves exactly along the lines of the principles that we seek to incorporate in this clause.

Now if it is the intention of the Crown Commissioners, as I am sure it is, to have regard to these things—to the amenity of the neighbourhood and to town planning considerations—I can see no earthly reason why those principles should not be incorporated in the Bill in the same way as they are required to maintain and enhance the value of their property. If you can say the one thing, I can see no reason why you should not say the other. I therefore cordially support this Amendment.

LORD BOOTHBY

Before the noble Lord replies, may I be allowed to say a word, immediately declaring an interest as a director of a bill-posting company in this country. In principle I am not at all opposed to this Amendment; I think it is quite right. But I think that some care should be taken in this matter because while it is essential to preserve the amenities of the countryside, particularly the beauty spots and such historic cities as Windsor, Winchester and so on, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rightly pointed out, I nevertheless think we can carry the campaign against outdoor advertising too far.

I have just returned from a prolonged trip to the other side of the Iron Curtain, and I must tell your Lordships that the thing that depressed ime more than anything else was the drabness, particularly of the towns. I came to the conclusion, to my great personal satisfaction, that one of the reasons for the drabness was the absence of outdoor advertising of any kind. While I should go so far as to say that you must take every possible step to protect the amenities of the countryside and to stop the kind of ribbon road advertising that is almost spoiling Italy, for example, it is nevertheless difficult to conceive of any outdoor advertising that does not improve towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow or 20 or 30 other industrial cities that I could mention. The designs are getting better all the time. They brighten our lives and they improve the gaiety of the general scene. I would therefore beg the noble Lord not to be carried too far on this sweep, this almost passionate wave of enthusiasm, for preventing outdoor advertising of any kind and for preserving amenities which do not in fact exist. Where the amenities exist, let us keep them at all costs: where they do not to any great degree, let us buck them up with a few posters.

LORD CONESFORD

I had not the slightest intention of intervening until I heard the last speech. One of the most appalling delusions that can afflict a human mind is that a city has no amenities. I could not myself be more eager than I am to preserve the countryside, but I have always been perfectly certain that, in the long run, we in this country will preserve the amenities of both cities and country or we will preserve neither. As long as you treat a city as a place from which to flee, you will not preserve the countryside. My only point of agreement, I think, with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, about advertising is that I agree with him that all outdoor advertising is not necessarily to be barred; but the idea that you cannot, in a town, spoil a street of good architecture by outdoor advertising is, frankly, ridiculous.

On the general merit of the Amendment now before the Committee, I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will give it the most sympathetic consideration. I do not know whether the exact words are right, but that there should be some expression in the Bill that, far from these being improper considerations for those responsible to keep in mind, they are the most proper considerations that they should keep in mind, I think the case has been made. I am sorry that the provocative remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, prompted me to an intervention that I had not intended, but I would assure the Committee, from a fairly long experience of these matters, that nearly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said on this subject was wrong, and that this Amendment seems to me to have considerable merit.

LORD BOOTHBY

Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us, before he finishes, the names of the streets in Wigan or Rotherham, for example, where the amenities would have to be preserved.

LORD CONESFORD

I am not sufficiently acquainted with either Wigan or Rotherham; but I think it is a most disastrous idea that it should be said to the inhabitants of any town, village or city in this country who feel that they have an amenity and wish to preserve it, "No, you must not preserve it, because your place is horrible already".

LORD SILKIN

I would question the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, on his idea of Wigan, which I think he has obtained from the music halls. Actually, Wigan is an attractive town with a very fine, wide main thoroughfare, and I can assure him that it would be possible to spoil that thoroughfare by improper advertisements of the kind which often spoil our towns.

LORD BOOTHBY

I withdraw the word "Wigan".

LORD HASTINGS

The effect of this Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would be to place a general duty on the Crown Estate Commissioners under Clause 1, subsection (3), while maintaining and enhancing the value of the Crown estate, to have due regard, as they have at the moment to have due regard, to the requirements of good management; and not only to that, but also to the preservation of all amenities in the areas in which Crown estates are situated, and to the principles of sound town planning. I do not think the effect of the Bill as at present drawn is really going to be in any way different from the objectives of the two noble Lords opposite who have moved this Amendment, and I hope to be able to show them, in the course of quite a short speech, that in fact their Amendment is unnecessary and that it will tend to complicate the issue rather than simplify it.

In so far as preservation of amenities and the principles of sound town planning are relevant to the welfare of the Crown estates, they will already be covered by the requirement of good management, and I think I explained that to a certain extent on Second Reading. It is in the interests of the Crown Estate to see that the areas in which they have estates retain a high standard of amenity, so that the values of the area, and therefore of the Crown Estate property within those areas, may be maintained. The Crown Estate Commissioners do now have regard to such considerations and will continue to do so under the Bill as already drawn; but in so far as the Amendment adds anything to what is already in the Bill, it seems to be seeking to place on the Commissioners a public duty which goes beyond what is required of them for the good management of the Crown Estate, and this would be a public duty in the nature of planning for the benefit of the community at large. But that is not a function that can properly be placed on the Crown Estate Commissioners, because it would raise wide issues of planning in the public interest which are properly governed by the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts.

As I said on Second Reading, the Commissioners, when selling or leasing land for development, are in much the same position as a private landowner. It would be wrong to place upon the Commissioners responsibilities which belong to the Minister of Housing and Local Government or to the planning authorities. It would not be right to suggest, by including these words of the Amendment in the Bill, that the Commissioners are expected to take a hand in the public duty of planning the use of the land of this country on behalf of the community at large. That is, and must remain, a matter of Government policy, under the control of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the planning authorities concerned. If it is suggested that, without words such as these, the Commissioners might do things which are against the public interest—and that is in fact what has been suggested—the answer was given by me on Second Reading, when I pointed out that, although the Commissioners are not themselves subject to planning control, the people who buy from them or who take building leases on the Crown Estate are subject to such control; and that point was fully recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The Commissioners always seek to co-operate with the planning authorities, and expect to conform to provisions contained in the development plan, which can be made to include Crown Estate land.

Perhaps on this point I might be permitted to enlarge a little, especially following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Planning authorities do in fact include Crown Estate land when they are drawing up their overall plans for a certain district, although the Crown Estate Commissioners themselves are not legally subject to the planning authority. But the land is included for the purposes of overall planning; so that if anyone leases or purchases that land, it immediately comes under planning control. I am informed that there are not very many places in the country on the country estates where there are great opportunities for town development; but where that is so, it is invariably the practice of the Commissioners either to sell or to lease the land, and not to develop it themselves. I will come in a moment to the question of Ascot, which was a special case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.

I should like to quote a few words of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, which he made on Second Reading; and here I am also coming to urban development. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 108), col. 265]: There are a great many estates where it may be that they manage them well and profitably, but very much to the detriment of the general public by indiscriminate building and commercialisation of the properties. I am not sure if that sentence is qualified by the words "may be", or whether in fact the noble Earl was stating that there were such cases. Probably he was speaking theoretically about what could happen, rather than what had happened.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Not of the Crown Estate.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Earl was talking about other developers and landowners. I rather thought he meant the Crown Estate Commissioners, but he did go on to give them high praise for what they had done in the restoration of the Regent's Park Terraces. Then he went on to complain about the possibilities of advertisements which the Crown Estate Commissioners might be tempted to put up on their properties, and which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, felt might be put up perhaps on the new grandstand at Ascot Racecourse, or in the neighbouring surroundings—

LORD SILKIN

No. I said theoretically they could put up a block of offices at Ascot, and no one could stop them if they built it themselves. They could not lease the land to somebody else to put up a block of offices, but they themselves could do that theoretically.

LORD HASTINGS

I am just coming to that part of the argument. It may interest the noble Lord to know that in Piccadilly Circus, for example, which no doubt, in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is greatly improved by the advertisements there—

LORD BOOTHBY

Hear, hear!

LORD HASTINGS

—on one side there are in fact no advertisements, and that is because that side belongs to the Crown Estate Commissioners. So that gives an indication of the views in the minds of many noble Lords opposite, that good taste has been exercised by the Crown Estate Commissioners. I hope they will not feel alarmed on that particular score, because a great deal has been made of this question of advertisements.

LORD BOOTHBY

I really must ask the noble Lord what he thinks causes foreigners from all countries to flock to Piccadilly Circus at night. It is the advertisements and only the advertisements—nothing else.

4.0 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

We have had an interesting side debate on advertising, but actually we are dealing with an Amendment to the Crown Estate Bill and I think that I must keep to the main subject, otherwise I may get involved in an argument between the noble Lords, Lord Boothby and Lord Conesford; and, as I hear on my left, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, might have to withdraw not only Wigan but also Rotherham—but I will not go further into that.

I was coming to the most important part of the argument, which answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, brought up about what might happen when the Crown Estate Commissioners themselves develop sites, something which will seldom happen in the country but which does happen with urban properties. Here they always seek to co-operate with the planning authorities and are expected to conform to the provisions contained in the development plans. In any event, the words suggested in the Amendment are not at all precise as an instruction to the Commissioners. In particular, the words, "the principles of sound town planning" appear to be open to argument, and if they do not tell the Commissioners precisely what they are to do, they would run the risk of setting up the Commissioners as arbiters of what are the principles of sound town planning. Surely that would not be desirable.

This is precisely where the conflict arises. The noble Earl kept talking about a conflict. He said, on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 108), col. 266]: …there is a conflict between the requirements of good management and those of good planning and the Minister's power to give directions. That is precisely why it is undesirable to add the words in the Amendment to the Bill, because they create a conflict and make the Crown Estate Commissioners arbiter in their own case. It puts on them the onus of making plans for their own developments and then putting them into force. Their function is to have regard to the amenities and good management of the estate but it is the function of the planning authorities, including the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to see that the plans put into force are good ones.

So far, no conflict has arisen between the Commissioners and the Ministry, and the Government suggest that it is much better to leave things as they are. In the unlikely event of there being a conflict of views on the development of one of the urban sites, the planning authorities can bring the difference of opinion to the notice of the Minister concerned, who can then give a direction, under the powers which are reserved in Clause 1 (4), as the noble Earl knows. It is felt that to add the proposed words to the Bill would create a greater conflict than there is at present. It would be better for the conflict to be resolved by the Minister giving directions, rather than by making the Commissioners arbiters in their own case. Therefore, the Government have concluded that it would be best to leave the clause as drafted and that the Commissioners should be concerned primarily with looking after the Crown estate and should have regard to all the considerations that a good landlord should have in mind. So far as the public interest is concerned, there should be, within the exercise of the Commissioners' general duty, a general power of direction for the Minister that could be used if the need for it arose.

LORD SILKIN

May I just ask the noble Lord if he has read Clause 1 (4), because it says that this direction "shall have regard to subsection (3)" and that before giving any such direction the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consult the Commissioners. But a direction cannot go beyond what is contained in subsection (3). Therefore, there could be no direction simply about complying with the principles of planning and of amenity, but only a direction about maintenance and enhancement of value and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be going beyond the powers of this Bill if he gave any direction beyond subsection (3).

LORD HASTINGS

I am advised that in fact that is not the case and that the clause as present drawn—" with due regard to the requirements of good management "—includes all that it should and is able to include for the duties of the Commissioners.

LORD SILKIN

I think that the noble Lord is wrong and that he is rejecting this Amendment under a misapprehension as to what subsection (4) means. Would he undertake to consult with his right honourable friend on this point and, if he turns out to be wrong, will he give further consideration to this Amendment on Report stage?

LORD HASTINGS

This is a highly legal argument, which I cannot enter into at the moment. I hope that I have explained to the noble Lord why his Amendinew, as at present drafted, is not acceptable: that it would not appear to add anything necessary to the Bill. The Amendment would make the Commissioners pay due regard … to the principles of sound town planning", but in his speech the noble Lord wanted to make the Crown Estate Commissioners subject to the Town Planning Acts, which they are not at the moment, for the control of advertisements and everything else.

LORD SILKIN

I want to put the Commissioners in this position. Just as they must have regard to the principles of good estate management—and in this they are the judges; and I am not proposing that we should lay down the law to them on the requirements of good management—so they should also be required to have regard to the interests of amenity and of good town planning. They are to be the judges. My noble friend and I would be quite content if it were stated in the Bill that they have to consider these matters, just as they have to consider good management. They would be the judges and nobody would be in a position to control them, because they are exempt from town planning.

LORD HASTINGS

I see exactly what the noble Lord is driving at. What I have been trying to prove is that this Amendment is not necessary, because at the present moment the Commissioners do take regard to all these matters; and if they did not, the Minister could give a direction. Moreover, if any difference arises over any legal point (it might even be legalistic), the Minister can also give a direction. However, I will certainly bring this point to my right honourable friend's notice, and if there is anything wrong in the way of drafting, I have no doubt that it will be put right. I cannot go farther than that, nor can I hold out any great hope or promise. But I will do that, and, in the circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will now withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

We have had an entertaining debate on this matter. I do not think that the noble Lord has gone very far towards convincing us. He says that the expression "principles of sound town planning" is ambiguous, but then so is the expression "principles of good management." These words are interpreted by the Commissioners themselves. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Commissioners are arbiters in their own case. Of course, they are. They judge for themselves how best to interpret their instructions. We are seeking to save them from the ambiguity and, indeed—I stick to it—from conflict between the interests of increasing revenues and rents and the interests of the public from the amenity and planning points of view.

The noble Lord said that the Commissioners would not do anything contrary to an amenity, because it would lower the value of the rest of their neighbouring property. In the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that is not so. He says that if they put up a large number of advertisement hoardings on the other side of Piccadilly Circus the value would rocket sky-high; and the same with their other properties. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby is not here, because we enjoyed his exhibition of coat-trailing, performed by an expert in the art; and I was glad to have the powerful support of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Commenting on the views of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I must say that I should certainly not agree that if a place is not a known beauty spot, or a place of historic interest, it does not matter what you do with it. I believe that the inhabitants of every village and town, and of any part of the country, have the right to enjoy their streets, whether of good or bad architecture, unadorned by the expression of commercial interest and the operations of the advertisement world.

I should like to ask the noble Lord one straight question. He says that the Commissioners seek to co-operate with the planning authorities; and I am sure that they do. But will he tell me whether, according to the Bill as it now stands, they would be able to develop, say, the property at Egham, which I think includes Runnymede? There are 250 acres at Egham, including common land, and I suspect that it includes Runnymede. Would it be within the powers of the Commissioners under this Bill to build a housing estate at Runnymede? If we include this Amendment, I maintain that they would not be able to do so, or if they attempted to, the Minister could give directions to stop it, but that without something like this Amendment there is no safeguard and the Commissioners themselves are in a difficult position. Could the noble Lord say whether, if they felt strongly enough, they would be able to ignore the requirements or the wishes of the planning authority?

LORD HASTINGS

I completely take the point made by the noble Earl, and whether they can ignore the plans of the town planning authorities if they so wish is what we have been discussing. My contention is that under the Bill as at present drawn the Minister could give a direction on that point. However, that is exactly the point that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would look into, and I will do so.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I thank the noble Lord, and on that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.