§
Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) In so far as an enforcement notice to which this section applies requires any operations to be discontinued forthwith—
but nothing in this subsection shall affect the operation of section 45(5) or section 46(3) of that Act in relation to such a notice in so far as the notice requires any other steps to be taken.
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at end to add:
and the enforcement notice shall state specificallyClause 9 deals with the enforcement notice served by a local authority or by the Minister upon the occupier of land to require him to remove or cease any unauthorised development, but it applies to rather a narrow type of notice, that which relates to land in Greater London, and is in respect of development for which planning permission was obtained after 5th November, 1964, and before the date that this Bill becomes law.
- (i) in respect of which operations it takes effect immediately and is not ineffective while an appeal is pending and
- (ii) in respect of which operations it will take effect only at the end of such period (not being less than 28 days after the service
952 thereof) as shall be specified in the notice and will be ineffective while an appeal is pending". Such planning permissions are nullified by an earlier Clause. In that narrow category, the subsection (4) that was originally in the Bill made such an enforcement notice effective immediately on being served. This was a change in the general law because, under Section 45(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, an enforcement notice takes effect at the end of a period stated in the notice and that period must not be less than 28 days. But these Greater London notices relating to post-November last planning permissions bite at once and take effect immediately they are served.
Subsection (4) also made a change in the law, in that an enforcement notice would not be suspended pending an appeal to the Minister under Section 46. Normally when an appeal is made under Section 46(3) the enforcement notice is suspended in its effect. As subsection (4) left this House it was quite cut and dried and clear. This kind of notice would take effect on service without waiting for 28 days, and no pending appeal would suspend it. But in another place it was observed that the enforcement notice could say two things. It could say "Stop building at once what you are building, because it has not now got planning permission", and, secondly, "Pull down what you have built."
It is quite right that the owner should not enable himself to go on doing unauthorised building just by the device of entering a notice of appeal, but it is wrong that he should be made to pull down a building before a final decision on that appeal has been reached. That point was raised in Committee in another place, and on Report the present subsection (4), which appears on the Order Paper of Lords Amendments as No. 5, was moved into the Bill. It is a fair 953 debating point that it was moved in by the noble Lord leading for the Opposition, but it was made quite clear in the debate that the words of the Amendment had been put into his mouth by the Government. In my submission they dealt only with a part of the problem, and did not go far enough. As the Amendment stands, considerable difficulty will be caused.
Under the new subsection (4) the Bill now authorises a dual-purpose notice—one saying that the owner shall cease forthwith doing something, and the second telling him what is to be done within a specified time. The rights and duties flowing from each part of a notice of that sort are different—different in effect on the notice and in the appeal from that notice. Unless the notice is very carefuly drawn to show these different results it will cause confusion in the mind of the recipient.
My Amendment is intended to obviate that confusion, and by ensuring that the position is clearly stated in the notice it will let the owner or occupier, or person to whom the notice is served, know exactly where he stands. If the Amendment is accepted a notice will have to state something as follows: first, "You are required to stop doing this forthwith. You can appeal to the Minister within 28 days against this order to stop, but despite that pending appeal you must still remain inactive until the appeal is settled", and, secondly, "You are also required to demolish the building which you have been building within, say, a period of three months. You can appeal to the Minister within 28 days against that part of the notice, and if you do appeal the three months will not start to run until the appeal has been decided."
That is what would have to be put on the notice if the Amendment were accepted. It is necessary that it should be made clear to the recipient of the notice what his rights are arising out of the two different parts of the notice.
The Bill certainly does not make light reading. It is not the sort of thing one can skim through in bed at night and understand what it means, or purport of which can be grasped in a few moments, and it is made more complicated by the proposed Lords Amendment. I want to simplify it for the men who have to deal with the Bill when it be- 954 comes law. We owe it to the public to see that the notices which are served under this Bill when it becomes law are clear, precise and definite.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that he did not want to make a party point out of the fact that this Amendment had been moved by his noble Friends but had been drafted by Government draftsmen. I do not know why he should feel embarrassed at saying that. It merely illustrates the open-mindedness with which we have approached this Bill throughout and our anxiety, wherever possible, to liberalise and clarify it in the interests of the people who have to work it. I think the new subsection (4) does precisely that. It draws a clear distinction between the particular operations which have to be stopped forthwith and those which have to be done after the period of appeal.
I would first point out that the notice has to be either drafted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government or else under his direction. It is therefore something which he has to initiate, and it is reasonable to assume that it will be a notice which meets the requirements of the Clause and is clear, otherwise my right hon. Friend would serve it at his own risk. If it was vague and ambiguous and it was not clear what people had to do under it, then if my right hon. Friend tried to enforce it in the courts he would suffer for it.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that these notices will explain what they are supposed to be doing in so far as an enforcement notice requires any operations to be discontinued forthwith. It must surely make clear what are the operations it is requiring to be discontinued forthwith, otherwise it would be quite ambiguous.
While I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said to try to clarify the Clause, I think the Clause in its present form is effective and I do not think his Amendment is necessary.
§ Question, That those words be there added to the Lords Amendment, put and negatived.
955§ Mr. Graham PageI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the end to add:
and the whole of such notice (if it requires any operations to be discontinued forthwith) shall be registered as a local land charge immediately after service thereof notwithstanding that a part of it shall not at that time have taken effect".Although I was prepared to accept the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's explanation in regard to the previous Amendment, I think there is a matter of real substance which arises out of this Amendment. As I explained on the previous Amendment, subsection (4) creates this dual purpose enforcement notice, part of it taking effect immediately and part of it taking effect perhaps in 28 days or whatever length of time is stated in the notice.Now an enforcement notice has to be registered as a local land charge against the property. That is under Section 15 of the Land Charges Act, 1925. It is entered as a charge against the property in Part III of the appropriate local authority's register, and it has to be registered when it takes effect, and I stress the word "when". The date on which it takes effect is the time at which it is registered as a land charge, and I find that under Rule 9(b) of the Local Land Charges Rules, 1934, Statutory Instrument 284 of 1934, as amended by Statutory Instrument 1283 of 1948. If it is a "stop and demolish" enforcement notice then the parts of it will take effect at different dates. It seems rather silly to register it in two sections. The first part of it saying "Stop the work you are doing" will take effect immediately on service of the notice, and be registered at that moment as a local land charge. When the notice goes on to say that one must do some operation on the land, such as demolish the building which is being built, then it will take effect at such date as the building has to be demolished.
If the proposal in my Amendment is adopted the effect would be that one would register this enforcement notice at once—the whole of the notice. If the enforcement notice included any direction to do something forthwith it could be registered as a land charge at once, and the necessity of taking two bites at it, registering one part first and then another later would be avoided. It would also obviate the possibilitiy of some 956 authorities deciding not to register until the whole order takes effect. There is quite a serious danger that local authorities could construe the Clause, as it now stands, in that way. They might decide that, since part of the notice takes effect only at some future date, they will delay registration of it as a land charge until that part takes effect. If registration is delayed in that way a prospective purchaser who carries out a normal search of the local Land Charges Register would be misled.
It is a very important point for people buying and selling property. The local Land Charge Register should be correct. We are left in the air, as the Lords Amendment now stands, as to when the local land charge has to be registered. If we make it definite, that it has to be registered if it includes a forthwith order, immediately it is served then that solves the problem. I am sure this Amendment could be accepted without affecting the Bill adversely. This raises a point which was never discussed in another place, a point which needs to be put right, and if it is not there will be considerable confusion.
§ Mr. MacCollThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said, speaking with all his great authority on conveyancing matters, that this is a more serious point than the last Amendment. There is a difficulty here about what happens to a notice where it is in operation in the sense that it is biting but where it is not finally approved because there is still a right of appeal outstanding. I do not pretend to move as surely in these highly technical matters as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby, but as I understand the general principle behind land charges, it has always been that they should be registered at the time when the restriction is firm. There should not be oscillations according to whether an appeal has taken place. Therefore I think that the best thing to do is to leave it as it is at present. I am not saying that I think the registration of local land charges is perfect by any means. I think it is common ground that they could be improved, but I do not think that the Lords Amendments to this Bill are the best point from which to start improving them. I think this might lead to repercussions in other spheres, where similar restrictions are in 957 existence. They cause blight even if they do not specifically have legal enforcement.
I think the whole problem of the effect of restrictions of this sort has to be looked at more generally. Probably the practical answer is that this is something which should be included in supplementary inquiries made by a person inquiring into land charges.
The supplementary inquiries would find if these enforcement notices were in existence, whether or not they were registered at the moment. In practice, it is not quite as important as the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I do agree that there are difficulties in local land charge registration generally that ought to be looked at, I hope, at some future stage, in a general review in the light of some of the criticisms that have been made.
§ Mr. Graham PageWith leave of the House, may I say that the Parliamentary Secretary is quite wrong in saying that when one registers land of this sort it becomes effective after the time for appeal has run out. It is defined under the land charges rules that registration has two steps when the notice becomes effective.
The Lords Amendment, which we are discussing now, quite definitely says that it becomes effective immediately it is served. The right moment at which to register part of the notice is when it is served and the next part of the notice is effective when the time for appeal has run out—normally 28 days. In this case, one notice would have to be registered at two different times.
This can be put right, not necessarily in this Bill, by Amendment to the land charges rules. Since the Parliamentary Secretary recognises that this is a practical point, may I ask him for an assurance that it will be put right in the rules?
§ Mr. MacCollOn the first point that the hon. Gentleman made, may I say that after our duels across the Table we often end up by writing letters to each other clearing up points. Sometimes I win the argument and sometimes he wins. The House never knows what state the game is in at a particular moment. On that first point, about whether there has to be a double registration, I will write to him if I am wrong.
I will look into the second point. But my feeling is that, unless there is in the parent Act some provision for linking it with rules made by the Lord Chancellor 958 covering land charges, you cannot do that. If it is found to be possible, however, I will write to the hon. Gentleman explaining the position.
§ Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.