CLAUSE 2.—(Refusal and postponement of interim development applications.) (Hansard, 19 October 1943)

§ Major Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "sheriff," and to insert "Secretary of State."
The object of this Amendment will be very clear to members of the Committee. It is to make an appeal under this Clause to the Secretary of State rather than to the sheriff. Under Clause 2, as I understand it, if anyone wants to develop any portion of land which a local authority is planning in the ordinary way under an interim development scheme the local authority has power under the by-laws to postpone consideration of the application until such time as it has completed its interim plan. Otherwise, the application might butt in very badly indeed into the whole interim scheme. So the Clause gives power to the local authority to postpone consideration of an application. The applicant, who might feel aggrieved by this postponement, appeals, under the Clause, to the sheriff against the delay and inconvenience which he might claim has been caused to him thereby. My hon. Friends and I suggest that the appeal would be far better addressed to the Secretary of State. When all is said and done, the Secretary of State exercises a kind of fraternal authority and influence over the whole of our Scottish planning. An appeal must inevitably have some reference to planning and the policy of planning, and the sheriff might not necessarily have any qualifications with regard to that. The appeal and decision must be to a very large extent of an administrative nature, and, therefore, it is more suitable for presentation to the Secretary of State. It is also the appeal of an individual against, perhaps, the communal interest, and the communal interest is better in the hands of the Secretary of State and is better safeguarded by him.
There is another important point, namely, the question of uniformity. Decisions may vary considerably in one sheriffdom, if that is the correct term, than 1311 in another, and we want uniformity in such decisions, in accordance with concerted planning. The reason the appeal should be to the Secretary of State is in order to get greater uniformity of decision. For instance, suppose a builder wants to build a house on vacant ground within the area of a planning scheme which happens to be in the interim development stage. The local authority says, "I am sorry, but we have not got so far as to be able to make a final decision on this yet. We must ask permission to postpone giving you a final answer because this provision does not dovetail into our scheme." The builder says, "I really cannot wait," and he appeals to the sheriff. It seems that the difficulty is this: The interim development authority explain to the sheriff that they are not yet in a position to make a decision as to the use to which the ground in dispute must be put and plead that giving permission to the builder to go ahead would prejudice their whole scheme. The appellant says, "I am ready to begin; I am not satisfied with your reason." All sorts of matters other than matters of law come into the question. Therefore my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that the appeal should be made to the Secretary of State rather than direct to the sheriff.

§ Mr. Neil Maclean (Glasgow, Govan)
We are practically agreed on this, and, if it were accepted, it would mean the disposal of most of the amendments on the Paper, because they are merely supplementary. Considering that any appeal to the sheriff would entail considerable expenditure in all probability by any aggrieved individual, while in the case of an appeal to the Secretary of State there would be practically no court fees, and considering that all the proposals for the planning of the areas must be before the Secretary of State's Department, I think the matter would be expedited and decisions arrived at with less expenditure involved to the parties.

§ The Secretary of State of Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston)
I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with hon. Members and also with representatives of local authorities' associations, and they are unanimous in asking us to accept the Secretary of State in preference to the sheriff. The point referred to in the Schedule is a question of legality, and we 1312 have another attitude to take up there, but this deals with a question of policy, and, in view of the unanimous view of the local authorities and what I take to be the unanimous wishes of the Committee, we accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)
I had not expected that the right hon. Gentleman would so readily have accepted the Amendment. I should have thought there was so much in the proposed change that he might at least have given us reasons, apart from the fact that some people agree with him, before making this substantial change. I should have thought that the fact of our always having in the past brought in the sheriff, for very good reasons, was a good reason for at any rate hesitating now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that this was a question for the community and that the community's interest would best be represented by my right hon. Friend. I should have thought, however, that that was a reason why an outside person should be brought in, such as the sheriff, because in fact the local authority will be speaking for my right hon. Friend, and, therefore, if the Amendment is carried, you are appealing to the very person who is, as it were, imposing his will on the appellant. It is a third view that we want to get. I am certain that -Oat is the traditional policy of the country, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain in detail why he accepts the Amendment.

§ Mr. Johnston
The question raised in Clause 2 (2, a) is whether the sheriff has to be satisfied that the development would be carried out immediately if the application were granted. The local authority's contention is that the sheriff is not in a position to know whether it could be carried out immediately and that the Secretary of State, who has Departmental advisers, is in a better position to know, and therefore in a better position than the sheriff to decide the issue. It is purely this narrow point that is under discussion.

Mr. Stewart
How would the appellant make his appeal to the Secretary of State? What is the machinery suggested?

§ Mr. Johnston
The Clause says that he may appeal against any such notice by giving notice of appeal within 28 days.

Mr. Stewart
We are thinking in terms of people who have certain plans to put 1313 forward. The owners of property in my constituency are not wealthy people but often poor widows. It is that kind of person for whom I am speaking, and they want to know precisely what is the method of making an appeal. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has really considered that. There will have to be some other kind of machinery. What is it?

§ Mr. Johnston
For the life of me I cannot see the point. If a man may appeal to the Secretary of State instead of to the sheriff, it seems to me a very simple matter. He has simply to send a letter.

Mr. Stewart
Then what happens?

§ Mr. Johnston
The Secretary of State has to decide whether he is satisfied that the development will be carried out immediately if the application is granted. He is in a better position to know than the sheriff, and that is the contention of all the local authorities.

Mr. Stewart
I am pressing this because of the ejaculations on the other side. Hon. Members say, "Wait and see." I am not satisfied to wait and see what the Secretary of State or any other official may do. I want to know precisely what is to happen if a poor widow in my part of the world makes an appeal. Is she to be heard? May she take a solicitor with her? What sort of examination is to follow?' These are important matters, which ought to be explained before we accept the Amendment. I press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if not now, at least at some other time, in some detail precisely how that person's appeal is to be treated.

§ Mr. Maclean
If the hon. Member will read paragraphs (a) and (b) he will see the method of appeal to be followed if it is to the sheriff. In view of the acceptance of the Amendment, he need only substitute the Secretary of State for Scotland for the sheriff, and the procedure is exactly the same.

§ Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)
It is obvious that the hon. Member opposite has very little experience in trying to prevent an individual not only preventing a development but cutting into the middle of it. The local authorities regard an appeal to the sheriff as delaying action, and in some cases it has involved the local authorities in paying compensation which would not otherwise be paid. It is because 1314 of their experience that, without prompting from Members of Parliament, they make this request. If the Secretary of State were the final arbiter in any planning scheme, the sheriff would not be able to cut across the desires and wishes of the Executive for the planning of the whole of Scotland. The thing is too absurd for words. Anyone dealing with property would surely consult his solicitor. There are any number of solicitors, even in East Fife, who could convey to the Secretary of State the terms of an appeal under this Clause just as easily as they could lodge it in the sheriff's court.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
I am not satisfied with the reply the right hon. Gentleman has so far given me, and I propose to put down a Question at an early date so that he can give me a considered reply.