§ 5. As soon as may be after an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous 736 to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of this Act has been confirmed by the Minister or confirmed as an unopposed order, the authority by whom the order was made shall publish, in the manner required by paragraph 1(2) of this Schedule, a notice in the prescribed form, describing the general effect of the order, stating that it has been confirmed, and naming a place where a copy thereof as confirmed may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours, and shall—
- (a) serve a like notice and a copy of the order as confirmed on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under the said paragraph 1(2) or under paragraph 1(4); and
- (b) cause a like notice to be displayed in the like manner as the notice required to be displayed under the said paragraph 1(2):
§ Provided that no such notice or copy need be served on a person unless he has sent to the authority a request in that behalf, specifying an address for service."
§ The noble Baroness said: The Committee will recall that I mentioned we were tabling this new Schedule when we had our discussion on Amendment No. 90. This Amendment brings in a whole new Schedule in connection with bridle-ways and footpaths Orders and it is closely based on the Seventh Schedule to the Highways Act 1959, which set out the procedure for such Orders. In the Countryside Bill the House has recently been dealing with Amendments to that Schedule to the Highways Act in order to deal with the local confirmation of such Orders when they are unopposed, and that is the provision now required in the planning Bill. The Government thought it would be unsatisfactory in a planning Bill to legislate by reference to another Statute as amended by another Bill in the present Session, so despite the present length of the Bill, which we all agree is terribly long—but happily we are reaching the end of this stage to-night —the Government thought it right to explain the position in extenso, and this is done in the interests of clarity in this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 4, insert the said new Schedule.—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ LORD CHORLEYMay I congratulate the Government on having taken this line. It has been a constant criticism that there has been too much legislation by reference. I hope this will be the progenitor of many attempts of this kind to clarify the position.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORI quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. This new Schedule looks a most formidable addition to the Bill, but I think it is to everybody's convenience that it should be set out here, in order to save people having to look it up in two separate Acts of Parliament.
§ On Question, .Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 5 agreed to.
§ Schedule 6 [Adaptation and Interpretation of Enactments, etc.]:
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 2, at end insert—
§ ("The Highways Act 1959 (c.25)
§ In section 38(2) (specification of highways which are to be maintainable at the public expense), in paragraph (e), after the words 'public path diversion order' there shall be inserted the words 'or in consequence of an order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 or by a competent authority under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s.153 of principal Act) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968'").—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD AIREDALE moved to add to paragraph 9
.In section 14(8)(6) after "1959" there shall be inserted the words 'except section 72, 73 and 74 thereof'.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to deal with a situation explained in a case, Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Beverley Borough Council, reported in The Times on May 31. An appeal is pending in the case and therefore it would not be right that I should discuss the facts, but I propose to deal with the general situation which the case explains.
§
We are here dealing with road-widening schemes and the like. These are dealt with in the Highways Act 1959, in particular in Sections 72, 73 and 74. Section 72 deals with the prescribing of improvement lines for widening streets. Section 73 deals with the prescribing of building lines, and Section 74 deals with a kindred matter. The Highways Act says that in these cases when the street widen-
738
ing scheme is prescribed immediate compensation shall be paid to the landowner whose land is injuriously affected by the road widening proposal. No doubt all local authorities would faithfully have followed that procedure laid down in the Highways Act were it not for the existence of a Ministry of Transport Circular, No. 696 of 1954, paragraph 8 of which says:
In view of the powers now available to local authorities as planning authorities for the control of development it is no longer necessary for councils to safeguard future road improvement schemes by using their powers … to prescribe building and improvement lines.
§ It then cites two earlier enactments which have bean reproduced in t1 e Sections of the Highways Act 1959 to which I have just referred.
§ The purpose of this paragraph of the circular is to put local authorities wise to the fact that there appears to be some conflict as between the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Highways Act on one hand and in planning legislation on the other, because, as your Lordships will have guessed, if the planning legislation procedure is followed, the land-owner whose land is injuriously affected does not get immediate compensation, as he would if the Highways Act procedure were followed. Having regard to the time it takes to effect these road improvement schemes it must, in many cases, be that the land-owner for the time being will never in his lifetime receive the compensation to which he ought to be entitled.
§ The time has come to resolve this apparent conflict between the intention of Parliament as expressed in two different Statutes, and I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that surely the Highways Act procedure ought to be adopted. Parliament was concentrating upon such matters as road improvement schemes when it passed the Highways Act, whereas when Parliament was dealing with planning legislation it was dealing with all sorts of topics and not particularly with such matters as road-widening schemes.
§ What would seem to be quite unfair, and almost intolerable, is that one local authority, feeling, perhaps, generous and law-abiding, should follow the Highways Act procedure and pay the 739 landowner immediate compensation, whereas some other local authority, feeling perhaps less generous and taking the hint in the Ministry of Transport's circular to which I have referred, should proceed by the planning legislation procedure and deny the landowner his compensation, perhaps for the whole of his lifetime. What one must surely achieve in matters of this kind is uniformity as between one citizen and another. The treatment he receives should not be allowed to be affected by the whim of the particular local authority with which he has to deal.
§ I will not weary your Lordships with the machinery whereby this Amendment seeks to achieve its purpose. Its purpose is to ensure that the will of Parliament as laid down in the Highways Act shall be followed in all cases and that the landowner injuriously affected shall have immediate compensation, which the Highways Act said that he should have. I dare say I shall be told that my Amendment is defective from a drafting point of view. This is not an easy matter to deal with. I shall not be discouraged if I am told that the Amendment is defective, provided that what I seek to achieve can be achieved by a satisfactory Amendment at the next stage of this Bill. I trust I have sufficiently explained the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Airedale.)
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThe noble Lord, Lord Airedale, explained at the outset that the effect of his Amendment would be to take away the power to make orders removing or restricting the effect of sections 72, 73, and 74 of the Highways Act, 1959, and that his concern arose following the recent court case he mentioned. I am advised that, in spite of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has made so cogently, the Government regard the situation left as a result of this case as satisfactory, in that it leaves with the local planning authorities and the Minister powers which it was always assumed they had and which they must have if development control is to be exercised satisfactorily. In these days the planning of development cannot 740 be regarded as something separate from the planning of roads—a point which I have noted has occurred time and time again, as this Bill has proceeded through its stages—and we cannot regard them as separate activities to be conducted by a separate authority under separate powers. For many years now local planning authorities have used their powers to control development which would conflict with the construction of new roads and the widening of existing ones, and it is clearly right that they should be able to do so.
The Highways Act provisions go back to the time before the universal planning powers of the 1947 Act were available to local planning authorities, and are now moribund. Local authorities were in fact advised by the Ministry of Transport, in a circular dated as long ago as 1954, not to use them. The Ministry of Transport are about to consult the local authority associations concerning the repeal of these sections in an early Highways Amendment Bill. Meanwhile, these Highways Act powers are still on the Statute Book, and it seems right that, until they are repealed, the Minister should retain the power to modify their effect by means of a development order if it should so happen that they were to hold up proper development; though it must be conceded that the power has not so far been used and, indeed, is not likely to be used in practice.
It is felt that the Amendment about which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, feels so strongly is not necessary to the Bill at this stage. We should like to make it clear that as a matter of principle the Government cannot accept the argument that planning powers are not properly used in those cases where it is necessary to control development which would interfere with road improvements or road construction. As I said, this point has been mentioned at various stages of our discussions. I hope the noble Lord will have second thoughts. We have taken full note of the points he has made, and we shall have time, between now and the next stage of our deliberations, to consider them carefully and calmly in the light of what he has said.
§ LORD AIREDALEIf that answer means that there is a likelihood that the Government may consider accepting an 741 Amendment at the next stage to achieve what I seek to achieve now, I will of course withdraw this Amendment. I would only say this to the noble Baroness. Am I not right in saying that at the present time it is quite open to a local authority to decide whether to carry out its road widening scheme under one Act and pay immediate compensation; or, if it does not feel very rich, not to pay immediate compensation but to proceed under a different procedure and deny the landowner his compensation indefinitely? Does the noble Baroness think that where different procedures are followed in different local authority areas this is fair as between one citizen and the other? Surely this is a matter which must be resolved so as to have universal and fair treatment as between one citizen and another. If I may have an assurance that this matter will be gone into with a view to an Amendment at the next stage, I shall be very pleased to withdraw this Amendment. But I do seek that assurance.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI do not wish to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I should not like him to think that I have given an undertaking that the Government will consider acceptance of an Amendment at the next stage. What I said was that we would read his comments and try to follow his arguments and, if necessary, would come back to this at the next stage. These are highly technical and complicated matters, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree. I would not mislead the noble Lord. I can assure him that we will take careful note of the points made and see what we can do at the next stage.
§ LORD AIREDALEI am very much obliged. I think I have sufficiently ventilated this matter for the time being and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis Amendment and subsequent Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 23, which we accepted earlier. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 94, line 45, at end insert—
("In section 159(1) (determination of applications etc. by statutory undertakers in respect of operational land) after the words 'such an application' there shall be inserted the words or such an application is deemed
742
to be made under section 16(7) of the Act of 1968 on an appeal under that section by statutory undertakers'").—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAAmendments Nos. 106 and 107 hang together. They deal with a challenge to the validity of footpath and bridleway orders by bringing them under Part II of the Act of 1962. I beg to move Amendment No. 106.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 11, after ("153") insert ("or 155").—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move Amendment No. 107.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 97, line 15, at end insert—
("() The said provisions shall apply to an order under section (Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act) or (Extinguishment of footpaths etc. over land held for planning purposes) of the Act of 1968 as they apply to a structure plan as if, in subsection (1) of this section, for the reference to the date on which the notice therein mentioned is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 5 of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways) to that Act is first published in accordance with that paragraph").—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis Amendment goes with No. 107B. These two Amendments together round off the process of applying sections of the 1962 Act as necessary to the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 98, line 47, at end insert—
(" In section 205 (ecclesiastical poperty)—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move Amendment No. 107B.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 100, line 4, at end insert—
(" In section 215(1) (power to require information as to interests in land), the words
743
'specified in paragraph 1 of the Eighth Schedule thereto' shall be omitted.
In section 217 (regulations and orders)—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis is merely a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 100, line 19, at end insert:—
(" In Schedule 8 (provisions of principal Act listed for the purposes of sections of the Act referred to in the Schedule heading), the following amendments shall be made:
(a) in paragraph 1(1)—
for the words 'sections 1 to 12' there shall be substituted the words 'Sections 1 to 3; section 12';
for the words 'sections 27 to 39; sections 41 to 87' there shall be substituted the words 'sections 27 to 29; section 32; sections 34 to 39; sections 41 to 44; sections 47 to 51; sections 56 to 66: sections 70 to 73; sections 77 to 87'; and
the words 'section 210' shall be omitted; and
for the words 'the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Schedules'; there shall be substituted the words 'the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Schedules';
(b) in paragraph 3(1) for the words 'sections 138 to 151 'there shall be substituted the words 'sections 138 to 142; sections 144 to 151'")—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAParagraph 54 of Schedule 6 gives the Greater London Council certain functions of a planning authority concurrently with the planning authorities themselves—that is to say, the London boroughs and the City. As drafted, it does not give the Greater London Council the functions of a planning authority under Clause 44 of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 14, leave out ("43, 45 to").—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move Amendment No. 109.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 102, line 20, at end insert—
("In section 16 (interpretation of Part I), in subsection (7), for the words from 'section
744
64(2)' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'section 16(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in that subsection'.").—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 102, line 21, at end insert—
(". In section 22 (requirement of industrial development certificate in certain cases), in subsection (4) for the words from 'section 64(2)' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'section 16(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 is deemed to have been made for such planning permission as is mentioned in that subsection'").—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAThis Amendment is consequential on the new clause after Clause 69. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 103, line 39, at end insert—
. In section 16 (power of local planning authority to make tree preservation order with immediate effect)—
'(2) Notwithstanding section 29(4) of the Planning Act, an order which contains such a direction shall take effect provisionally on such date as may be specified therein and shall continue in force by virtue of this section until—
whichever first occurs.(3) Provision shall be made by regulations under the Planning Act for securing—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to. Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 7 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
§ 7.9 p.m.
§ LORD MERRIVALE moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "not without the approval of the Minister be submitted to him", and insert "be submitted to the Minister". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 112 which stands in my name. I think I am right in saying that when the new planning system first comes into operation only a very few local planning authorities will be empowered to operate it. Other local planning authorities will not be able to propose alterations to their development plans without the permission of the Minister. That is under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7. It is not at all clear at the moment what the Government intend these authorities who are not empowered to operate the new system should do in the interim period.
§ I feel that the need to obtain the Minister's permission would seem to be a disincentive to do any further work on the development plan until they in turn are empowered to operate a new system, which might not happen for a number of years. I should have thought that this could mean a gap during which to some extent, planning could stagnate. The Amendment suggests that local planning authorities still operating under the old system shall submit to the Minister proposals for alterations and additions to their development plans. However, the main object behind this Amendment is to draw a statement from the noble Baroness, or from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the Government's intentions during this interim period. Accordingly, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 9, leave out from ("shall") to ("under") in line 10, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
§ LORD KENNETI will give the noble Lord a statement forthwith. Where it is necessary during this transitional period that plans should be submitted and approved under the existing provisions of 746 the 1962 Act, the Minister will not withhold his consent to their submission. There will be cases, for example, where comprehensive re-development plans is have come to maturity and it is urgently desirable that they should be got of with. In such cases, authorities which are not planning under the new system will certainly be permitted to submit their comprehensive development area proposals as an amendment to the development plan under the 1962 provisions. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's point and will enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD MERRIVALEIt is my intention to withdraw my Amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his statement, brief as it is.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 7 agreed to.
§ Schedule 8 [Enactments repealed]:
§ LORD KENNETThis Amendment is consequential on No. 70. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 5, column 3, leave out from second ("and") to ("subsection") in line 10. —(Lord Kennet.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD KENNETThis Amendment is consequential on the new clause carried into the Bill after Clause 69. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 12, column 3 at end insert—("In section 29(5), the words 'and, subject to' onwards").—(Lord Kennet.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move Amendment No. 114A.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 22, column 3, at end insert—("Section 187").—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move Amendment No. 114B.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 109, line 27, column 3, at end ilsert—
| ("In section 200(2), the words 'the Crown Estate Commissioners or by'"). | |
| —(Baroness Serota) |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
747§ BARONESS SEROTAAmendments Nos. 115 and 116 are the last of the Amendments that are consequential to the Amendments we made to Clause 16. I beg to move the first of these Amendments.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 109, leave out lines 51 to 53.—(Baroness Serota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS SEROTAI beg to move No. 116.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 109, leave out lines 56 and 57.—(Baroness Scrota.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD KENNETThis Amendment also is consequential on the new clause moved into the Bill after Clause 69. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 110, line 16, column 3 at end insert—("In section 16(1), the words 'by the Minister'").—(Lord Kennet.)
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORI have no desire to oppose this Amendment. It is the last on the Marshalled List, and I should like to seize the opportunity, at the end of some 15 hours of debate on the Committee stage of this complicated Bill, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Baroness, for their unfailing courtesy, and to congratulate them on having carried the Bill through this Committee stage without hazarding a line of it in a Division. What will happen in later stages I cannot predict.
§ LORD KENNETPerhaps I may thank and congratulate the noble Lord on his unfailing courtesy, reasonableness and persuasiveness, which I have sometimes found a personal embarrassment, because there have been occasions when he has convinced me—or nearly—when he should not have done. May I also, improper as it is, thank my noble adjutant for her part in this Bill, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the elucidation, if not actually to the amendment, of this Bill.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.