---

Thatched Roofs (Planning Policy)

I never thought that I would stand in this Chamber and celebrate the work of thatchers, but on this occasion I am very pleased to do so. I am pleased, and find it interesting, that you are presiding over the debate, Mr. Bayley, because you represent a beautiful constituency in York with real architectural gems. I am genuinely pleased that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) secured this debate. He and I have only just finished the Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, where my respect for him grew by the day, not only because of his huge housing experience, to which you have referred, Mr. Bayley, but because, frankly, he had the uncanny knack of simultaneously praising me and pulverising my argument. He has deployed the same skills today in raising the important matter of the current shortages and subsequent rising prices of cereal straw suitable for thatching, and related planning policies. This issue affects a significant number of people. Some 24,000 thatched buildings are listed, and countless others are unlisted but located in conservation areas where local policies may impose restrictions on the materials used for re-thatching. The key theme of this debate was brought out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—the sensible and humorous exercise of planning controls. The Government attach great importance to the protection of the historic environment. Buildings are listed because of their special architectural or historic interest. Once lost, they cannot be replaced, and they can be robbed of their special interest as surely by unsuitable alteration as by outright demolition. They are a finite resource and an irreplaceable asset, and I think that we have a responsibility to protect such gems for future generations—something that you will know only too well, Mr. Bayley, with your constituency of City of York. The starting point for the exercise of listed building control is the statutory requirement on local planning authorities, under section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have"““special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.””" That reflects the great importance to society of protecting listed buildings from unsuitable and insensitive alteration, and it should be the main consideration for local authorities in determining applications for consent. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has mentioned, guidance on the operation of the planning controls, insofar as they affect the historic environment, is given to local authorities in PPG15, published in 1994, which states:"““There should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings, except where a convincing case can be made out...for alteration or demolition.””" Again, as he has said, specific guidance on alterations to listed buildings, prepared by English Heritage, is annexed to PPG15. It makes the point that each historic building has its own characteristics usually related to an original or subsequent function, and that these should as far as possible be respected when proposals for alterations are put forward. I think that the right hon. Gentleman quoted the following piece of guidance on thatched roofs, but I want to reiterate it, because I take a slightly different subjective view:"““Thatched roofs should be preserved, and consent should not be given for their replacement by different roof coverings… When roofs are re-thatched, this should normally be done in a form of thatch traditional to the region, and local ways of detailing eaves, ridges and verges should be followed.””" The words, ““should normally be done”” represent an important consideration, to which I shall return. In addition to that annexe to PPG15, English Heritage has produced a detailed guidance note specifically dealing with thatch and thatching. It describes the three thatch types commonly found today—water reed, combed wheat reed, and long straw—and makes the point that the material, in the form in which it reaches the roof, has a strong influence on the method and resulting appearance. The guidance note advises that, when a change of material or style is proposed, the onus should be on the applicant for listed building consent to explain the need for change. In turn, the local authority's policy should be based on a thorough knowledge of local traditions of thatching. The policy should aim to recognise regional diversity, sustain materials and techniques, conserve the character of an area and protect material of archaeological interest. That is the important background against which planning authorities exercise listed building control. I stress that it is for local authorities to take account of the available guidance but, ultimately, to consider and reach a decision based on the specific circumstances of each case. As the right hon. Gentlemen are aware, where listed building consent is refused, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Where listed building consent is granted, there is a wide power to impose conditions, which may require the preservation of particular features of the building, the making good of any damage following the works consented to and the reconstruction of any part of the building after the works, with"““the use of original materials so far as is practicable””." Again, the last five words of the guidance are important. PPG15 advises that all conditions must be necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. Unless a condition fairly and reasonably relates to the circumstances of the building and its conservation needs, it could be ultra vires. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has stated, the guidance clearly leans towards a replacing like-for-like policy as far as re-thatching is concerned—I agree with his interpretation. Again, I must stress the central point of my contribution: I do not think that wording in guidance, such as ““should normally be done””, or"““so far as is practicable””," which I have quoted already, is over-prescriptive. It gives planning authorities scope to take account of specific difficulties and circumstances at both national and local level.