'(1) This section applies where development takes place, without consent, to a relevant structure.

[R] Registered interest declared.

(2) In this section—

(a) ''relevant structure'' means a building or other structure which is subject to conservation area consent or a listed building;

(b) ''development'' means (in the judgement of the local planning authority) destruction or substantial damages;

(c) ''exceptional circumstances'' means if an alternative planning application is approved within 6 months;

(d) ''specified period'' means a period, not exceeding three years, prescribed by the local planning authority.

(3) The local planning authority shall, save in exceptional circumstances, require that the owner restore the relevant structure within a specified period to its state before the development took place.

(4) If the requirement in subsection (3) is not met, the local planning authority may make arrangements to do so at the expense of the owner.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I offer a warm welcome to you this morning, Mr. Pike. I am pleased to be back in the Committee, and I apologise for my absence on Tuesday afternoon. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for moving two new clauses in my absence.

According to its title, new clause 50 deals with development of a listed building or structure in a conservation area. In fact, that is a polite way of saying that it deals with the destruction of listed buildings and structures in conservation areas. The new clause would enable local planning authorities to require the restoration or reconstruction of a structure

that is protected because it is in a conservation area or because it requires listed building consent. If the developer—I use that word because it is the legal term for someone who knocks down a listed building—fails to restore the building, the new clause would enable the local authority to do so.

I am sure that the Committee is aware that English Heritage maintains a list of listed buildings at risk. I accept that the problem is not only developers; sometimes local planning authorities that allow listed buildings to fall into disrepair. The regional director of the south-east region drew my attention to the fact that one of the listed buildings at risk in my constituency is Northwood house, which he describes as

''A long-standing case of partial neglect by the Isle of Wight Council . . . now partly ameliorated by repairs''.

I do not claim for a moment that local authorities are perfect in this respect, but they do have a locus to maintain their own list of listed buildings and other structures in conservation areas that are at risk. They need to be confident that they can act to have such buildings restored if damage is caused to them, either wilfully or through neglect. I shall give some examples.

The new clause is designed to test and strengthen the existing law. There is insufficient guarantee that listed buildings and structures in conservation areas—I hope the Minister will be happy if I do not keep repeating that—will be protected. Too many buildings of that sort suffer from curious accidents at a time when they lie in the way of potential development. I would like to give two examples of that drawn from my constituency. Before I started speaking, I should have declared an interest because I am an owner of a listed building, but not one of those to which I refer elsewhere in my remarks.

In the Cowes high street conservation area there is a grade 2 listed pub, the Three Crowns. Sadly, it was demolished by a bulldozer under the control of a developer who was planning to turn it into a jazz bar. I am pleased to say that the magistrates found him guilty of an offence under listed buildings legislation and imposed a fine of £25,000, which I believe is close to the maximum. I congratulate them on that. However, I regret to say that the building has not been rebuilt, and only the fa¢ade remains.

A second example concerns Merrie Gardens farm. I confess that when I heard that there was a farm called Merrie Gardens, I thought that it came out of ''The Archers'', but it is a real building, and a quite historic one. A stone and thatched mediaeval building at Lake, it was gutted by fire, and there is no sign that it is to be reconstructed. All the adjoining premises have a commercial or industrial use. It is not difficult to draw the conclusion that the fire may not have been entirely an act of God.

The new clause defines a relevant structure as

''a building or other structure which is subject to conservation area consent or a listed building''.

It defines development, and states clearly that what is meant is

''(in the judgement of the local planning authority) destruction or substantial damages''.

It states:

''The local planning authority shall, save in exceptional circumstances, require that the owner restore the relevant structure within a specified period to its state before the development took place.''

Exceptional circumstances means

''if an alternative planning application is approved within 6 months''.

The new clause would allow the local planning authority to define the specified period, which should not exceed three years. Subsection (4) would give the local planning authority the power, if the owner did not restore the building, to make arrangements to restore it at his expense.

I hope that the new clause would be a powerful tool to enable local authorities to ensure that listed buildings are neither wantonly neglected nor wantonly destroyed. It is one thing for an owner to face a fine of £25,000, but if the development value of a site significantly exceeds the likely maximum fine—in many cases it exceeds that sum by a multiple of 10—there is precious little disincentive to allow buildings to fall into disuse, neglect or destruction.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on his new clause. He has identified a pertinent point about something that is a problem in many parts of the country. However, although I agree with him on the intention, there could be problems with implementation of the provision. I can think of two. One is that some listed structures are very old indeed, and are built using construction techniques that would be difficult to replicate in a modern environment. If such a building were to be destroyed deliberately, perhaps with a bulldozer, it would be extremely difficult to restore it to what it was. As my degree is in mediaeval studies, I am concerned about the danger of ending up with a replica that does not match up to the original.

My other concern is that, in contrast to the law on cars, under which motorists must have insurance, buildings insurance is not compulsory. If, for example, an elderly couple with no insurance or insufficient insurance allowed a listed building to burn down, through neglect rather than deliberate action, the new clause would force them to rebuild it at great expense, even though they had no money to do so. Presumably, that would force them to seek mortgages, which they might not be able to obtain. I foresee see practical difficulties with that.

I am not trying to dent the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for dealing with the problem. It needs to be dealt with, perhaps by increasing the maximum fine to above £25,000. If people can make tenfold profits, then let us increase the fine tenfold and relate it to the potential redevelopment value of the site. If the potential for profit were removed, the likelihood of people doing such things would be significantly reduced, although that would not deal with the issue of buildings falling down due to neglect. This is a difficult area, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having a stab at dealing with it.

New

clause 50 would require a local planning authority to require an owner to restore a listed building or other structure in a conservation area that has been destroyed or substantially damaged without consent. It would also allow the local planning authority to make arrangements to restore the building or structure at the owner's expense when the owner has failed to do so.

We should recognise that the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains enforcement powers for situations in which unauthorised work has been carried out on a listed building. The local planning authority may serve an enforcement notice. Section 42 enables a local authority to undertake the work required by the notice and to recover the expenses incurred from the owner. Section 74(3) of the Act provides the same powers regarding the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. The new clause would go further than that by imposing a duty on the local planning authority to take action, except in those circumstances defined in the clause. It would remove the local planning authority's discretion.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some important points, but it is undesirable to try to solve such problems by removing local authorities' discretion. Local authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the public interest. They need to tailor their approach to fit the circumstances of each case, whatever the breach of planning control might be. They are accountable to their local councillors and local communities for their decisions.

Imposing on local authorities a duty always to take restorative action could bring perverse consequences. For example, if the case had been made before the works took place, a local authority might have been prepared to consent to the demolition of a listed building or a building in a conservation area. Restoration may well be a perverse course of action in a case involving a building in a regeneration area where there are important regeneration considerations, or where a building needs to be demolished for health and safety reasons but permission was not sought in advance. In those circumstances, asking people to apply for retrospective planning permission would involve needless bureaucracy.

The hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Ludlow both spoke about fines, which I had not previously considered. I shall be happy to consider that matter. However, the new clause would not help to achieve the aims of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight because of the potential perverse effects of taking away local authorities' discretion, and of forcing them to perform restoration work that might not be desirable or advisable in the circumstances. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for drawing attention to the level of fines that may be imposed, and to the Minister for listening to his point.

On reflection, I accept the Minister's point that it may be perverse to take away local authorities' discretion through subsection (3), although I was not proposing to take away any discretion through subsection (4). Will the Minister consider permitting the courts to levy a fine that substantially outweighs any planning gain that may be obtained by the destruction of the building? I am grateful to her for agreeing to look at that, and I shall be interested to see what proposals she makes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.