HC Deb 26 June 1967 vol 749 cc193-6
Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 39, line 26, to leave out 'arbitration' and insert: 'the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that it would be convenient if the five following Amendments were discussed at the same time, that is to say, in page 39, line 29, leave out 'arbitration' and insert 'determination';

in line 46, leave out from 'be' to end of line and insert: 'referred for determination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962'. in page 40, line 4, leave out 'arbitration' and insert: 'the Minister of Housing and Local Government'. in line 10, leave out 'arbitration' and insert: 'the Minister of Housing and Local Government'. in page 41, line 4, leave out from 'or' to 'shall' and insert: 'determination by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under this section'.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be convenient to dispose of the other five Amendments at the same time.

The Amendment asks for some explanation. Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) thinks, I think that in the House of Commons we can still ask for explanations of very complex legal matters. This asks for a correct understanding of what the Bill does and does not do.

Clause 57, as I understand it, governs the submission of plans by the company to the Corporation. I presume that it governs them in the sense that at this point of the Bill—and this is precisely the assurance I am seeking—the plans are to be submitted to the Corporation as landlord of the project, and not to them as planning authority.

As I understand it, the Clause seeks to say that before any of the main works authorised in the construction of this marina shall be proceeded with, the plans shall be submitted to Brighton Corporation and they shall be considered and approved by the Corporation, if possible, subject to any conditions, and that if there are any unacceptable conditions or anything like that, the matter shall be settled by arbitration.

I am not clear whether this overrides the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. Surely any private developer of any project such as this will continue, as is provided for in Clause 67, to be subject to the provisions of the town and country planning legislation. If this is so, why is it, when the plans might be disapproved or approved with unacceptable conditions, that the appeal is to arbitration and not, as is usual in town and country planning matters, to the Minister? Does it mean, for example, that if there is a disagreement between the company and the Corporation on this point an arbitrator will settle the matter between them, but that a local resident who objects to any of the features can ask for and provoke an inquiry by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under normal town and country planning legislation? Will there have to be an arbitration between the company and the Corporation and perhaps on top of that, under the town and country planning legislation, public inquiries and all the other things in protection of the public interest under the Minister of Housing and Local Government?

If a local resident or anyone aggrieved or not liking these plans can still ask the Minister to intervene to hold inquiries and to submit the whole thing to town and country planning legislation, I am satisfied. I simply want to be assured that this power of arbitration is not an alternative to the powers under the town and country planning legislation and that it will be in effect the Minister, in the normal manner, who will settle these matters in the event of disagreement between the local people, the company and the Corporation. I do not want it taken out of the hands of the Minister by anything in Clause 57. If my hon. Friend can assure me that is not the case, I shall be very happy.

Mr. MacColl

The position is not quite so simple and I cannot give a one-word answer.

The letter of 29th September, 1966, on behalf of my right hon. Friend gave outline planning permission, subject to various conditions, for the development of the land the subject of the application to include a yacht harbour, marina, club, restaurant, public houses, and so on. Clause 5 authorises construction of the harbour works and access roads and this carries with it planning permission for this specific development and to that extent duplicates the decision letter.

But by virtue of class 12 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1963, the detail of the development, design, external appearance, siting within the limits of deviation and means of access, will need planning permission. Clause 40 empowers the company to carry out other developments—club premises, restaurants, hotels and so on—and the proviso of subsection (1) of that Clause ensures that the Bill does not confer planning permission for those purposes, and therefore for those purposes the company would have to go back to the decision letter.

In Clauses 6 and 7 a number of minor works are mentioned which might not come within the development and therefore might not require planning permission. They are not the sort of things about which my right hon. Friend would feel that he was particularly good at arbitrating. My right hon. Friend is a resourceful man and always willing to be helpful, but his knowledge of caissons, cofferdams, slipways, culverts and syphons is not that of an expert arbitrator and, therefore, with becoming modesty, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he would rather not have responsibility for those things.

Mr. Chapman

Does that mean substantially that this a Clause which, as drafted, will not interfere with the ordinary town and country planning legislation provisions applied to the major part of this development and that if there is objection to any of the detailed features of the large-scale development, there will be the normal opportunities for people to make their views felt and for the Minister to call in matters for decision in the usual way?

Mr. MacColl

When receiving guidance and then asked a question, one goes back to the beginning and reads it all again. Broadly speaking, what my hon. Friend has said is correct. On the main matters of development, things of the sort which would normally arise in planning, the decision letter would be binding, but any dispute about interpreting the decision letter would be dealt with under town and country planning legislation.

Mr. Chapman

I am much obliged. My hon. Friend has explained the matter to my satisfaction and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.