HC Deb 27 October 1966 vol 734 cc1379-98
Mr. Allason

I beg to move, Amendment No. 217, in page 62, line 12, to leave out from 'which' to the first 'the' in line 14.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it might be convenient to discuss with it Amendment No. 218, in line 16, to leave out 'that'.

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Allason

It is necessary to deal with the general implications of the Clause before dealing with the Amendment in order to put the need for it into perspective. The Clause deals with exemption from levy granted to builders with title to that land before 24th September, 1965, and having planning permission. It is necessary to look at this in detail to discover exactly the position of these builders or developers.

They are defined in subsection (6). First, they must have held their title before 24th September, 1965. They must have held their title on the date when the original White Paper was published, to make sure that they have not in any way anticipated the Government's intention. Secondly, they must have had planning permission then, or, if they did not, they have planning permission which has virtually been back-dated to that date by appeal. They must have obtained planning permission, and they would have had it if the planning permission had been granted before that date.

The next criterion is that they are carrying out a project to build houses. There is also an allowance under subsection (2,b). There may be an allowance for subsidiary buildings which are built in connection with the project, though principally it is for the building of houses. Finally, they have to notify the Commission within six months of the first appointed day that they intend to carry out the development.

The builder or developer who has fulfilled all those conditions clearly has a legitimate title to build without being charged the levy, and it would be retrospective legislation if the levy were charged. This is not a matter of a concession being graciously granted, but the giving of a right which will otherwise be taken away. There is a concession to builders tucked away in paragraph 11 of Schedule 5, for some reason which I have never quite managed to discover, but that has nothing to do with this issue. This is a right, and not a concession.

The effect of the Amendment is to omit "the Commission are satisfied". We are sorry to have to remove the Commission's satisfaction, but it is intolerable that this should be a matter of opinion for the Commission. This, surely, should be a matter of fact. If there is any dispute the Commission should not be a judge in its own case, when it is a matter of a borderline decision.

This is a very important exemption which is fully justified and not something that is graciously granted. It should in no way be related to the opinion of the Commission. We amended Clause 18 yesterday to remove the reference to the opinion of the Committee, so there is a good precedent for this Amendment. There is no case for the exercise of discretion by the Commission, and I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington

The effect of these Amendments would be to remove the discretion of the Commission to decide whether or not the principal purpose of the project was the provision of housing accommodation. There is considerable merit in the purpose of the hon. Member to make the provision work to the advantage of the person who is carrying on the development, but if the Amendment were accepted it would in fact be very much to the disservice of the developer.

What the Commission now has to do, in its discretion, is to decide, during this purely transitional period—because in the course of time the situation will pass away, as the date will no longer be relevant, and developments will not come within its sphere or operation—what is the principal purpose of the project. There may be many circumstances in which it could be argued how much of a project was housing development.

If the Commission is deprived of its discretion in the event of a dispute the issue will have to be sent to the Lands Tribunal to be resolved, and we believe that in the question of the character of development discretion should be with the Commission. The Commission can

decide on merit, in borderline cases, whether there is to be a suitable development of housing accommodation.

If the Amendment were accepted the Lands Tribunal would have discretion to adjudicate, and we say that it would be the wrong body to make this sort of decision. I think that the hon. Member would find that developers would not be as happy with the arrangement as he thinks. There will have to be a formal application to the Lands Tribunal, and no discussion of the matter with the Commission, with cards on the table. I did not notice the Amendment until a day or two ago, but I have discussed this question with hon. Members, and they have not raised any difficulty with me about it.

That is not to say that the hon. Member is wrong, but for this purpose I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Allason

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the severance provisions concerning an appeal to the Lands Tribunal? There the Lands Tribunal is in an almost identical position, in saying, "Is this a sensible piece of development or not?"

Mr. Skeffington

The same considerations do not apply in connection with the levy. That is why I drew the distinction.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 111.

Division No. 188.] AYES [7.34 p.m.
Abse, Leo Carmichael, Neil Faulds, Andrew
Allen, Scholefield Carter-Jones, Lewis Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Anderson, Donald Chapman, Donald Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Archer, Peter Coleman, Donald Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ashley, Jack Concannon, J. D. Floud, Bernard
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dalyell, Tam Forrester, John
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Fowler, Gerry
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Fraser, John (Norwood)
Beaney, Alan Davies, Harold (Leek) Gourlay, Harry
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Bidwell, Sydney Dewar, Donald Gregory, Arnold
Bishop, E. S. Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Blackburn, F. Dobson, Ray Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Doig, Peter Hamling, William
Booth, Albert Driberg, Tom Hannan, William
Boston, Terence Dunn, James A. Harper, Joseph
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Dunnett, Jack Hattersley, Roy
Brooks, Edwin Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Hazell, Bert
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Eadie, Alex Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hilton, W. S.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hooley, Frank
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Ellis, John Horner, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) English, Michael Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Ensor, David Hoy, James
Cant, R. B. Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Noel Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hunter, Adam Norwood, Christopher Skeffington, Arthur
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Ogden, Eric Slater, Joseph
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) O'Malley, Brian Small, William
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Orbach, Maurice Snow, Julian
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Orme, Stanley Spriggs, Leslie
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Padley, Walter Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Kenyon, Clifford Palmer, Arthur Taverns, Dick
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Park, Trevor Tomney, Frank
Lawson, George Parker, John (Dagenham) Varley, Eric G.
Lee, John (Reading) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Wallace, George
McBride, Neil Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Watkins David (Consett)
McCann, John Price, William (Rugby) Wellbeloved, James
MacColl, James Reynolds, G. W. Whitlock, William
Maclennan, Robert Robertson, John (Paisley) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
MacPherson, Malcolm Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Williams, Alan (Swansea W.)
Marquand, David Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Roebuck, Roy Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mason, Roy Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mellish, Robert Ross, Rt. Hn. William Yates, Victor
Miller, Dr. M. S. Ryan John Zilliacus, K.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton. Test) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Molloy, William Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Sitkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Mr. Walter Harrison and
Murray, Albert Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Mr. loan L. Evans.
Newens, Stan Silverman, Julius (Aston)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grieve, Percy Murton, Oscar
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Nott, John
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Hall, John (Wycombe) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Awdry, Daniel Harris Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Baker, W. H. K. Harris, Reader (Heston) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Percival, Ian
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay) Harvie Anderson, Miss Pink, R, Bonner
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Hastings, Stephen Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biffen, John Hawkins, Paul Prior, J. M. L.
Blaker, Peter Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pym, Francis
Body, Richard Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Heseltine, Michael Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Brewis, John Higgins, Terence L. Roots William
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Hill, J. E. B. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bullus, Sir Eric Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Russell, Sir Ronald
Campbell, Gordon Holland, Philip Scott, Nicholas
Chichester-Clark, R. Hornby, Richard Sharples, Richard
Clark, Henry Howell, David (Guildford) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clegg, Walker Hunt, John Sinclair Sir George
Cooke, Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Iremonger, T. L. Stodart, Anthony
Costain, A. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Thorpe, Jeremy
Crouch, David Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Cunningham, Sir Knox Kirk, Peter Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dance, James Knight, Mrs. Jill Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) McAdden, Sir Stephen Weatherill, Bernard
Eden, Sir John Maddan, Martin Webster, David
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maude, Angus Whitelaw, William
Errington, Sir Eric Mawby, Ray Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Farr, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Fisher, Nigel Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Woodnutt, Mark
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monro, Hector Younger, Hn. George
Clover, Sir Douglas More, Jasper
Goodhart, Philip Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Eyre and Mr. Grant.
Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 62, line 25, to leave out from 'that' to 'was' in line 27 and to insert in respect of the whole of the land comprised in the project either— (a) planning permission for the carrying out of material development'.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that it would be convenient that we should debate, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 234, in page 62, line 26, to leave out 'authorising' and to insert 'permitting', and Amendments Nos. 235, 236, 237, 238 and 239.

Mr. Skeffington

I suggest that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, it would also be convenient for us to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 88 and 110, which are on virtually the same point.

Mr. Graham Page

On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be inconvenient to have a debate on Amendment No. 110, although I realise that the subject might be referred to in a debate on these Amendments.

Mr. Speaker

The point has been made. We will not take those together, but stick to the original suggestion.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

For the avoidance of doubt, I presume that it will, of course, be in order to refer to Amendment No. 110, albeit that Amendment is reserved for subsequent individual debate. That is right, is it not, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members seem to want it both ways at the moment. They want separate debates, but a joint debate. It will, however, be in order to refer to Amendment No. 110.

Mr. Skeffington

Amendment No. 87 and the other two Amendments to which I referred, and on which discussion will be allowed, are Amendments which are desirable to remove doubt about the interpretation of the words "authorised by planning permission", because they are used in several places in the Bill, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has already discovered. The principal places are Clause 6(3,a), Clause 62(3,a) and, of course, in Clause 67. There have been certain inquiries about the meaning of these words, particularly in connection with Clause 67, with which I will deal first.

We accept that "authorised by planning permission" means that all the necessary planning approvals which might be required under a planning permission have been obtained. However, because there might be some possibility of confusion, the Amendment to Clause 94 will put the definition in relation to Clause 67 beyond doubt by spelling it out clearly. It is quite lengthy, but I think that this makes it clear that the meaning of "authorised by planning permission" is that if there is outline planning permission, either it must itself authorise works or any approval required by the permission must be obtained.

This is the substance of the Amendment. It is now in the definition Clause. While that definition of "authorised by planning permission "was right in regard to Clause 67, it would perhaps be too narrow as regards Clause 62. Its effect in relation to that definition in Clause 62 is that it would be only those builders and developers of residential property who had obtained all the necessary consents under any necessary planning permission before 23rd September, 1965, would have the benefit of exemption which that Clause gives.

This would obviously cut down the exemptions very considerably, in a way which was never intended, and which would be contrary to assurances which have been given from time to time to various bodies. It is unlikely that building firms holding stocks of land which they proposed to use for development in two or more years' time would normally obtain not only outline planning permission but also the necessary detailed approvals under that planning permission.

It has always been my right hon. Friend's intention and the Bill's purpose that the exemptions should apply if only outline planning permission existed on the land. The Amendment to Clause 62 therefore provides that it is sufficient in the context of that Clause—not in relation to Clause 67—for there to be outline planning permission in existence on the land, without any requirement as to subsequent approval of conditions under the planning permission.

Perhaps it might be helpful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who will subsequently move Amendments, if I were to say that, if Amendment 87 were in due course approved by the House, the effect which he intends by his Amendment, No. 235, would be met to that extent. I think that may be helpful to him when he comes to that proposal.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

When putting down my Amendments which are being discussed now together with the Minister's, I was conscious that at first blush there might seem to be something a little semantic in tabling a series of Amendments to substitute the words "permitted" or "permits" for "authorised" or "authorises". That might be the case, were it not for the intricacies and niceties of the laws of town and country planning. As the House will now appreciate, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is not a mere point of semantics. It is a point of considerable practical importance—of prime importance, of course, to the second of these Clauses, Clause 67, rather than to Clause 62, and I had in mind the effect of the Minister's Amendment on my Amendments to Clause 62. My Amendments are of primary importance in the context of Clause 67.

It is now clear, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that prior to the tabling of these Amendments and counter-Amendments there was doubt as to the position of an outline planning permission in the context of Clause 67—and, indeed, of Clause 62. The hon. Member tabled his Amendment No. 110 to the interpretation Clause—Clause 94—in order, as he says, to remove, a doubt. I have simultaneously tabled my Amendment to remove a doubt, but do so in a different way. Whereas the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to exclude the benefit of outline planning permission from Clause 67, I am seeking to include it. When I say that he seeks to exclude it, I mean that he seeks to exclude an outline planning permission unless or until it is clothed with full Stage 2 approval.

As its rubric shows, Clause 67 is concerned with projects … of material development begun but not completed before first appointed day. At first blush, the Clause looks like an exempting Clause—that is to say, a Clause exempting developers from what would otherwise be the liability to pay the levy—but, in effect, it is not an exempting Clause in its full effect. As hon. Members know, liability to Case C is referred to in Clause 27: Where the carrying out of a project of material development of the land is begun on or after the first appointed day. Of course, the converse follows, which is that where material development is begun before the appointed day it is normally exempt from liability to levy under Case C.

The effect of Clause 67, however, with which we are here concerned, is to bring within liability to Case C separate projects of material development not themselves begun to be carried out before the first appointed day which, apart from Clause 67, might have been taken to be included with a larger projected development which was begun before the first appointed day. In those circumstances, apart from Clause 67, they would have escaped liability to Case C.

That being so, it follows that it is better for a developer with a large incomplete project to be outside Clause 67 altogether; that is to say, to get the whole of his project considered as a single pre-first-appointed-day development. To do that he has to satisfy three requisites which are set out in subsection (1) of Clause 67. The Clause states: The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to any project of material development (in this section referred to as 'the larger project') where and they follow thus: (a) the carrying out of the project was begun before the first appointed day but is not completed before that day; (b) one or more specified operations comprised in the project (in this section referred to as 'the existing operations') began before the first appointed day to be carried out on part of the land comprised in the project, but no specified operation has before that day begun to be carried out on the remainder of that land;"— and then (c)—and this is the one with which we are here primarily concerned: the carrying out of the project on the remainder of that land is not authorised"— and that is the word I seek to amend: by any planning permission in force on that day which authorises any of the existing operations to be carried out. Therefore, the position under subsection (1,c) is this. If the carrying out of the project on the remainder of the land is authorised by a planning permission in force, the whole project is outside Clause 67 and will rank as a single project begun before the first appointed day and, consequently, will escape liability to the levy under Case C. If, on the other hand, it is not so authorised, it will come within Clause 67, and the remainder of the development will rank as a separate project and will have liability under Case C.

Against that background one has to turn to the Interpretation Clause to see what a developer will have to show to establish that the carrying out of a project of material development on the remainder of the land is authorised by a planning permission. If Amendment No. 110 be carried—and before you assumed the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker ruled that the debate on Amendment No. 110 is reserved, but that reference to its content is in order—and those words be incorporated into the interpretation Clause of the Bill—Clause 94—we get a definition of what is meant by "authorised by planning permission" in these words: (3) Where for the purposes of any provision of this Act it falls to be determined what development of any land is or was authorised by planning permission at a time when planning permission granted on an outline application (that is to say, an application for planning permission subject to subsequent approval on any matters) is or was in force in respect of that land, any development of that land which at that time—

  1. (a) is or was authorised by that permission without any requirement as to subsequent approval, or
  2. (b) not being so authorised, has or had been approved in the manner applicable to that planning permission,
but no other development, shall for those purposes be taken to be, or (as the case may be) to have been, development authorised by that permission at that time; and any reference in this Act to operations, or the carrying out of a project, authorised by planning permission shall, in relation to planning permission granted on an outline application, be construed in a corresponding way:". There follows a proviso: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the operation of section 62 of this Act. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to that proviso, but there is no such saving proviso in respect of the effect on Clause 67. So the effect of no doubt the prime intention of this Amendment to the interpretation Clause 94 is that outline planning permissions will not count for the purposes of Clause 67 unless and in so far as they have been followed up by full Stage II approval.

8.0 p.m.

The definition of a planning permission granted on an outline application which it is proposed to disregard in these cases for the purposes of exemption from Case C liability goes far beyond the definition in Article V (2) of the General Development Order, 1963. That is a matter on which no doubt the Minister may be challenged when the debate comes on Amendment No. 110.

What Article V of the General Development Order does in effect is to define an outline planning permission as one subject to subsequent approval of any matters relating to the siting, design or external appearance of the buildings or the means of access thereto. But the definition the House has seen from the words of the Amendment No. 110 which will be in Clause 94 of this Bill, extends to planning permissions subject to subsequent approval of any matter. Therefore, it deserts the well-established framework of Article V of the General Development Order and extends it in that way.

Therefore, the effect is that where there is a planning permission for the development of the remainder of the land but where there is also a condition on that planning permission requiring subsequent approval of any matter—be it large or be it small—and that approval has not been given at the material time, then such development will not under Clause 67, unless it is amended as I have suggested, be classified as authorised by the planning permission.

Consequently, it will be treated as a separate project of development not begun at the first appointed day and will consequently be liable for Case C levy. That is the practical improvement, and a very real practical improvement one would imagine, in the context of developments begun before the appointed day because, as the House will appreciate, developments, especially large-scale developments, are normally carried out in stages and therefore the effect of isolating these projects as being separate projects liable to Case C levy although they are in reality part of a larger project begun before the appointed day, is one which must make a very substantial difference to many developers and impose a considerable penalty upon them.

As I have indicated, the matters which can be reserved for subsequent approval by conditions in an outline planning permission as here defined might be large or they might be very small, but the effect would be the same on both. It is wrong that exemption from or liability to Case C levy should turn on such small matters or fine points.

The primary object of my Amendments is to reverse what now appears to be the Government's intention—although it was not clear that it was their intention until their Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper. By reversing their apparent intention my Amendments would allow an outline planning permission to govern this question in the context of Clause 67 without the restricting influence on the definition here. It is right that that should be so because the matter of development is outside any principle at the stage of the grant or refusal of an outline application. That being so, that is the better yardstick whereby to make a judgment for the purposes of the liability to Case C levy under Clause 67.

I should perhaps conclude by saying, that being the object of my Amendments, I hope the object is clear. I do not of course have any obstinate pride of draftsmanship in the matter, like any hon. Member who has not got the advantage of Parliamentary draftsmen to assist him. It may very well be that if on reflection the Government felt that the view I have put forward is the better view they could clothe it in better language. I am comforted by the thought that that would make no doubt a useful exercise for the noble Lord who will take the Bill for the Government in another place there to introduce it.

I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether, before sitting down, I should formally move my Amendments, or any of them. I understand not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No. This Amendment must be disposed of first.

Mr. Skeffington

I paused before rising because I was not quite certain whether the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), or some of his hon. Friends, wanted at this stage to intervene. They have put down an Amendment to our proposed Amendment No. 88. I may have some encouraging information to give the hon. Member if he were disposed to move his Amendment, but if he does not do so, or express his intention of doing so, of course I cannot.

Mr. Graham Page

If I may now respond to that and treat the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks as an intervention and not another speech, may I say that the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has done a very great service in drawing the attention of the House, and of the public outside, to what has occurred at this very late stage in the progress of this Bill. Until now developers have thought that the Minister and those who have the conduct of this Bill had intended that outline planning permission was the same as planning permission.

They were justified in believing that because the Bill imports into itself the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, Section 221, to which I have been referred previously by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the interpretation Section in that Act and defines "planning permission" as permission under Part III of this Act, and in construing references to planning permission to develop land or to carry out development of land, or to applications for such permission, regard shall be had to subsection (2) of section twenty of this Act. That is not material to our present discussions, but Section 20(2) relates to the extension of an existing use of land. Up to now in the Report stage of this Bill developers could rely upon that definition of planning permission because the Bill imported the Town and Country Planning Act into itself. It follows that developers were entitled to rely on Orders made under the 1962 Act, or the Acts which it consolidated.

My right hon. and learned Friend has told the House of the General Development Order made under previous Acts consolidated by the 1962 Act and has referred in particular to Article V of that Order. There is no doubt whatever that developers have been justified in thinking that if they have outline planning permission and if they start developments and carry out a specified operation defined elsewhere in the Bill they will escape the levy. It is obvious from the fact that the Government have considered it necessary to table these Amendments that no longer can we consider outline planning permission as planning permission which will permit a commencement of development before the appointed day and which will let a developer escape from levy.

There must be, not merely one or two developers in the country who have relied on this, but hundreds, possibly thousands, who, because of the discussions in the professional Press, because of letters published in the national Press, and because of the discussions which took place in Committee, when no clue was given that the developer was to be deprived of what everybody understands as planning permission, although colloquially up to the present it has been called outline planning permission, relied on the position I have referred to.

I cannot help feeling that this is something of a swindle of the public. They have been led to believe that by undertaking certain work with certain permissions before the appointed day levy would not arise. Although it might be an action under Case C, although it might be the commencement of development, provided that it was covered by planning permission it was thought that this "would escape levy. Many people have arranged their business and their development in reliance on that.

Then, a few days before the Bill was due to be considered on Report, there appeared on the Notice Paper Amendments clearly showing that the Minister had changed his mind and intended to deprive those who had arranged their affairs, as they thought properly, so as to escape paying levy, of the benefit of that position. It is something of a confidence trick which has been played on the public.

I should at the beginning of my speech have responded to the Parliamentary Secretary's invitation to state whether we wished to move our Amendment to Government Amendment No. 88. We do so wish.

Mr. Skeffington

My right hon. Friend will be very happy to accept the Amendment to Amendment No. 88. I have already indicated that the Government take the view that, if the House approves Amendment No. 87, Amendment No. 234 is probably unnecessary. My advice is that it certainly would achieve what the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) intends. I hope that he will not feel obliged to press it.

Amendments Nos. 235 to 239 all relate to Clause 67. I do not for a moment dispute the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Indeed, I support it. However, these Amendments would have the reverse effect of the Government Amendment. My right hon. Friend wishes me to indicate straight away that he could not accept them.

Clause 67 deals with Projects of material development begun but not completed before the first appointed day "— that is, where some part of the project has not been started. In that case it has always been accepted in the principle of the Bill that there is no reason why that type of development should not bear levy. It was absolutely right that definite developments either approved or started before the appointed day should be exempt. That has been the intention. It seems to be proper—I hestitate to say so in the presence of such a distinguished practitioner in town and country planning law, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman—but I am advised that there is some doubt whether the use of "permit" could have the effect desired by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, perhaps this is a hare I need not start because, as we do not propose to recommend, either here or elsewhere, that these Amendments be accepted, it would be an unnecessary debate upon the legal form.

8.15 p.m.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My Amendment was necessarily drafted in some haste. My object was to get the point clear, which I succeeded in doing, with the reservation I made as to the draftsmanship.

Mr. Skeffington

The purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments is quite clear. For the reasons I have stated, the Government cannot advise the House to accept them. It is the Government's view that, were these Amendments to be accepted, they would encourage landowners to flout planning control by finding some way of commencing an operation as a preliminary to obtaining approval of the details of a scheme in order to avoid a levy before the appointed day. This might have far-reaching consequences upon the yield of levy. It would bring another unfairness into the Bill, which is not desirable on any count. For all these reasons, I must advise the House not to accept the Amendments.

Again, I venture to cross words with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, in effect, that, once an outline planning permission has been given, this was the decision to go ahead, or not to go ahead in relation to development. He will know much better than I do that in some cases outline planning permission can be so vague that it is very difficult to say that this on its own could or ought to be the decision. It may be in the very vaguest and broadest terms, so that no one can take a further decision until either detailed plans are submitted or particular permissions have been sought. It would strain matters to say that, once general outline planning permission is granted, that is a good enough decision in relation to land. In some cases it may be, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that in many cases it would not be.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Once planning permission has been given in principle on an outline application, up till now—it will be different in future; this is one of the things I criticise about Amendment No. 110 to Clause 94—only those specific matters could be reserved under Article 5 and it was not open to a planning authority to go back on the decision in principle. This is the effect of the case of Hamilton v. West Sussex County Council, a case which the Parliamentary Secretary will know. I cannot recall any case in which, an outline planning permission having been given, agreement was not subsequently reached, assuming that the developer wanted to go on on stage 2 approval.

What I said substantially represents the position and would be accepted as being the position by those who are accustomed to dealing with these matters.

Mr. Skeffington

I put the view that I hold myself as to the character of what I might call an open permission in a number of these cases. But I rest my case much more strongly on the fact that, while we desire to give relief to the project which was genuinely started or intended to be started and which fulfils the conditions in the Clause, and while we wish that to preserve the exemption, we do not want to open the door so wide as would the right hon. and learned Gentleman's subsequent Amendments. I hope that he will feel that he need not move the first of them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 62, line 34, at end insert: (4) For the purposes of the application of the last preceding subsection to planning permission granted on an outline application (that is to say, an application for planning permission subject to subsequent approval on any matters) any requirement as to subsequent approval shall be disregarded, whether before 23rd September, 1965, any such approval had been obtained or not.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from 'disregarded' to the end of the subsection.

Mr. Skeffington

We accept this Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Clegg

I beg to move Amendment No. 222, in page 62, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the second 'the' in line 38 and insert: 'This section shall not have effect unless before the end of two years from the appointed day.' It may be for the convenience of the House to consider with it Amendment No. 231, in Schedule 5, in page 112, line 30, to leave out 'six months' and insert 'two years'.

The points in both Amendments are much the same. Both concern exemptions for builders and developers of residential properties and in general we welcome the exemptions. We also welcome the motives which inspire them. However, we do not feel that they go far enough, because it seems that the builder would have to begin his development or claim his exemption within six months of the first appointed day. This may be all very well for the first exemption, that is, for land held before September, 1965. But the situation has changed remarkably since the Bill was first put into draft. Indeed, it has changed again since the second matter, which is the subject of Amendment No. 231, was put into the Fifth Schedule.

Since the Committee first considered these exemptions and welcomed them, although we sought a longer period, there can be little doubt that in past months the starts of new buildings have fallen off. The economy has moved into a stricter phase, and there is ample evidence of this constantly before us in the country and in the House.

When we discussed similar Amendments in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that what we seek in Amendment 231 was not put in the Fifth Schedule to enable builders to stockpile land, and I presume that that was one of the reasons why he imposed this time limit. But since then the demand for private housing has fallen. Where there is a credit squeeze allied to growing unemployment, the situation is completely different, because the demand for private houses must at all times be related to those who can afford to put down the deposits and pay the mortgages.

We believe that the Minister should be preparing for the situation at the end of the period of strict control of wages and prices next August. It is very unlikely that builders will be able to take advantage of this concession within the six months beginning March, as until the New Year there is an absolute freeze, and thereafter we have the limited freeze of prices and incomes. Therefore, we on this side of the House feel that if the Minister is to get building going again when the economic situation is right, he would be wise to accept the Amendments which enable builders to buy land. They would be ready to go on immediately conditions change and be able to build houses which would be readily saleable. For those reasons I ask the Minister to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Willey

The Amendments are both "Oliver Twist" Amendments. These were two occasions on which I have made concessions, and the second is a concession upon a concession. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) now suggests that the period allowed for different purposes should be extended. We can be quite pragmatic about the first: which is the proper period? I am still convinced that the period of six months is right and proper. One must strike a balance in this. The hon. Gentleman has not argued that there are any onerous difficulties in registration, which would be the only argument. It is in the interests of both parties to get this settled as soon as possible, and six months is the right period.

In giving the second concession, one was concerned that small builders should be able to make a contribution to the housing programme. This is why we took the date of 1st August. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed this in Standing Committee, and then extended it to six months after the appointed day. But it was, of course, effective from 1st August. I have no reason to think that this was not right. Whenever one takes action like that there are suggestions that the period might have been longer, but I have had no official representations about this, and I still believe that the view we took then was right.

Amendment negatived.