KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 7 March 1972)

§ LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND
My Lords, I just wanted to say some words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, and my noble friend Lord Conesford. I agree with every word that they said. I declare one interest, in that I spent my childhood and youth in Chelsea. I would only add to what they said that one of the reasons that tourists come to London is that London is unique and quite different from any other town. We have open squares and open spaces which may be visited, and no other town I know of has them. If we destroy what we have we shall make a great mistake and lose many of the tourists who at present come here.

§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE
My Lords, I have an interest to declare, in that I have for many years been a ratepayer in Kensington and Chelsea, but I rise because of the wider questions which are raised. As was made clear by the 28 noble Lord, Lord Conesford, this is really a "dummy run" for legislation to show us how we can make the centres of our cities liveable and preserve that liveability. This applies not only to London but also to the centres of cities all over the country. The Kensington and Chelsea Corporation should be congratulated on their initiative, and not least along with the Corporation the present Mayor, Mrs. Gumbel, and the previous Mayor, Alderman Edward Thom, in blazing the trail.
My Lords, creeping conversion is not to be dealt with simply by tackling or even removing the symptoms. Registration is not the full answer. In part, creeping conversion is the result of sharp inflation of property values on owner-occupied residential property, with all the swingeing estate duty in prospect for owners. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remote in his intellectual fastness preparing the Budget, will hear what has been said. To try to stop the creeping conversion of hotels by registration is like turning up the gas under the kettle and screwing down the lid; the evil is simply a reflex of inflation. The difficulties about registration have been pointed out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. In any case, one must ask what powers of inspection would be necessary to make it worth while and whether those powers of inspection would be acceptable.
The question of dog fouling hardly needs discussion; but once again, are we quite happy that wardens are to be the people to ask for someone's identification? On the question of noise, surely we should be considering during the Committee stage not only noise that is generated supposedly in the form of music, but also other kinds of noise, notably that caused by ventilators in restaurants, which disturb the rest of people through all hours of the night. If the Town Clerk of Kensington and Chelsea should happen to he listening to the debate, may I say that he will find correspondence on file about that. Nor is it only a question of noise from ventilators that have not been installed completely, or which are not working properly, or are not the right type. There is also the nuisance of smell which this Bill does not appear to cover. My Lords, it is also a pity that the Bill does not 29 cover shop displays. But all these are matters which may be looked at during the Committee stage. One looks forward to its being a serious investigation of the overall problems of liveability in the heart of a big modern city, and I wish it Godspeed.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, I must disclaim any personal interest in this Bill, being resident neither in Chelsea nor in Kensington. But we ought to recognise that this is a special case. I hope that the House will not too readily allow itself to be persuaded by the gentle tones of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We have to realise the urgency of this problem as it affects Chelsea and Kensington, in that both the large air terminals are situated either within the boundaries of Chelsea and Kensington or in close proximity to them. It would be just as logical to say that one ought first to wait for national legislation before making any attempt to curb the growth of the Costa Brava or Miami as it would be to use the same plea on behalf of Chelsea and Kensington. It is just because this area is in the neighbourhood of the large air terminals that I think it incumbent on the House to urge that action be taken to deal with the problem before it is too late. This applies especially in view of the crowded legislative programme of the Government which means that there may be some considerable delay before this whole problem can be dealt with on a national basis.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
My Lords, this Bill has received a most gratifying reception, for which I would thank all those who have spoken. I do not wish to say many more words, except to comment briefly on three things which have come up in the debate. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale did not mean what I thought he meant by a "dummy run". I hope that this will be a successful run, that the Bill will go through both Houses and that something will be achieved by it. I do not think it is going to achieve a wide-ranging discussion on the broad points raised by my noble friend Lord Conesford and by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale—I do not think that those are within the scope of the Petition and what is in the Bill—but I suggest to your Lordships that those 30 two speeches pointed the issues to which the Bill is directed.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to say that this is a national problem. So it may be. It is all very well to say that it is a Greater London problem. So it may be. But the fact remains that on the national front my noble friend Lord Sandford said that he could not promise quick legislation. On the London front, if, as everyone agrees, this is a planning matter and one for the enforcement of planning control, the authority responsible for the enforcement of planning control is the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Corporation. It is they who have to operate the control and see that these creeping-hotel uses do not take place and that the perpetrators are not allowed to get away with it. That is why they want these special powers, because they are in the front line, and why, in view of the fact that it is unlikely that anything national will happen, they are pioneering themselves.
I appreciate that there may be things that are wrong technically. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford say that the Department would like to have further discussions with the promoters on Parts II and III. I also appreciate what he says about the other registration measure, the Development of Tourism Act. But goodness knows what the classes of hotels and other establishments are going to be which will fall into the scheme; and, as I said, it will not be done for the purposes which this Bill is seeking and it will not necessarily come in time into the hands of the Chelsea and Kensington Corporation. When this subject was being discussed in another place my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State said, after one of the quotations that I used before: When we talk about the solutions to this problem of loss of accommodation by a change of use of hotels we must make sure that the solutions are based on relevant information, because if we cannot identify the problem and find out what is going on, none of the proposed solutions put forward are worth anything. No more are planning powers if you do not know what is going on. That is the object of this Bill: the heart of it, as I said.
31 The only other point I wish to make is on Part IV, the compulsory purchase Part, which worried a number of people. As I understand the petition of the National Association of Property Owners, which I have read, they challenge the Preamble to the Bill and the particular clauses in which these provisions occur. That will mean that this issue will be directly presented to the Committee for decision. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked, in effect, are these powers justified? That is what the promoters would have to satisfy the Select Committee about. They would have to answer just the questions that my noble friend asked, just the questions and suggestions of my noble friend Lord Nugent, and deal with the problems that my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned. I think everybody is agreed that this Bill should go to the Select Committee. I am sure that the members of the Committee will read with care the debate that has taken place on this Second Reading, so that they may be fully appraised of the difficulties which your Lordships see in the Bill.