HL Deb 01 July 1991 vol 530 cc779-81

31 Clause 12, page 19, line 43, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.

32 Page 19, line 49, leave out 'to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert: '(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.'.

33 Page 20, line 2, leave out from 'injunction' to end of line 4.

34 Page 20, line 39, at end insert: '(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—

  1. (a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and
  2. (b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5) (b), and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'.

35 Page 23, line 4, leave out from 'into' to end of line 11 and insert 'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).

(2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—

  1. (a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;
  2. (b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;
  3. (c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and
  4. (d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.

(2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—

  1. (a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2) (c);
  2. (b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2) (d).

(2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'.

36 Page 23, line 19, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 30 and insert '(2B))'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 36. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 175.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, I believe that she wishes to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I am moving Amendments Nos. 31 to 36 and the others that I mentioned.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 address a point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The amendments enable the instrument which creates a planning obligation to limit the liability of the original covenanter to the period before they cease to have an interest in the land. This enables someone entering into a planning obligation to cease to be bound by its terms once he has disposed of his interest in the land concerned.

The same will apply to successors in title. A successor in title will be bound, however, to meet any obligations which have not been carried out, or only partly so, by his predecessor in title. For example, periodical payments under a planning obligation may not have been made. Where someone purchases an interest in land in such circumstances, I would expect the purchaser to ensure that any outstanding commitments are met before the transaction is completed.

Amendment No. 33 removes the provision for recovery of sums due under a planning obligation via the magistrates' court. Instead, such sums will be recoverable via the county court or the High Court. My view is that the magistrates' court is not the appropriate forum in which to make decisions about the large sums of money which may be payable under some planning obligations. Nor should the magistrates' court deal with the complex legal issues that may arise.

Amendment No. 34 would empower my right honourable friend to make regulations specifying that money to be paid under a planning obligation shall be a charge on the land. This would strengthen the position of the local planning authority if the covenanter or his successor in title did not pay moneys due. The authority would then have a power of sale over the land, without the need to go to court to recover the money due. Any regulations made could also provide that the local planning authority had a prior claim over those of other mortgagees. I believe this amendment further strengthens the enforcement powers available under this clause.

Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 175 are essential drafting amendments, intended to ensure that new Section 299A in Clause 12(3) works properly.

Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 are consequential amendments to Clause 67. They amend Section 91A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by adding references to planning obligations entered into by the Crown. The effect of this is that a restoration payment made pursuant to such an obligation will be allowable as a tax deduction.

I commend these amendments to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 36.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome this group of amendments. They will remove a number of doubts. In particular one should mention Amendment No. 35. That shows exactly where planning obligations may not be entered into and the requirement of the instrument executed as a deed laying down the conditions. That is important and we should not pass it by without a word of gratitude to the Government for what they have achieved on this point.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their indulgence. I welcome the Minister's comment on these amendments. However, does she believe it satisfactory that a developer who enters into a planning obligation can then avoid the obligation by selling on the land? While I appreciate the provisions for charges—and indeed first charges will take priority over others as the Minister has outlined—it surely cannot be right to leave it to the local authority to pursue; a purchaser (he might be a man or a company of straw) and to go through the rigmarole of enforcing the charge and selling the property with no recourse against the original developer.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is true that if the local authority has overtly had difficulty pursuing repayment under an obligation on the part of an owner, and that owner sells on, the obligation will be well known. The obligation is sold on to the new purchaser.

There are two points on that. First, it ought to be made known at the point of sale that an obligation goes with the land. Secondly, the purchaser should make absolutely certain by taking proper advice that he is buying not only the land but an obligation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.