HC Deb 15 July 1965 vol 716 cc950-1

Lords Amendment: No. 4: in page 8, line 38, after "case" insert: the erection of that building would not constitute development to which this Part of this Act applies or (if it would constitute such development)".

Mr. Jay

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I am glad to put at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) by assuring him that this is not a drafting but a clarifying Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Clarifying Amendment?

Mr. Jay

Yes, it is a clarifying Amendment. The hon. Member seems rather slow in taking the point.

This Amendment refers to the question of the incidental use of a building as an office. Under present planning law, permission for some other type of building, such as a shop, carries with it a right to use part of the building for offices if this is incidental to and included in the main use of the shop, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West knows. Clause 7 was to ensure that in future incidental use of a new building for office purposes was not extended beyond the 3,000 sq. ft. limit.

It appeared, however, that this qualification might possibly, as the Bill stood, have been thought not to apply to a building other than an office which contained no offices at all when it was originally erected. That, of course, was not our intention, nor that of hon. Members opposite. Thus, the Amendment makes it clear that any planning permission for a new building granted on or after 5th November, 1964, in the Metropolitan region or granted after the passage of the Bill in any area to which control applies, carries a condition that the building shall not at any time contain floor space used as offices which exceeds the exemption limit of 3,000 square feet, and that applies equally to a building which did not contain offices when erected and to one that is not yet erected.

Mr. Peter Emery

We are delighted to have that explanation because, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, his noble Friend in another place forgot his brief in explaining it and it was taken on an assurance that it was a good Amendment. I am also delighted that we were able to assist the Government in getting the last Amendment through and overcoming another of the rebellions that seem to be arising night after night on the benches opposite.

The Amendment will comply with the general view about an approval given for a shop and the accommodation that would go with it, and for that reason we are delighted to be able to support the Government in clarifying the position.

Question put and agreed to.