Clause 15. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)
I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 7, after 'on', insert 'all the'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 9, after 'date', insert 'of service'.

§ Mr. Allason
Clause 15 concerns the stop notice procedure by which there is to be in future an immediate means of enforcement of planning control by the service of a notice prohibiting the continuing of any specified operation. This will be useful where there is a nuisance through breach of planning control. This is a sharp weapon in the hands of the local planning authority and, as a sharp weapon, it should be used with care.
686 There are various methods of ending the stop notice. In the event of there appearing to be an error, the stop notice will be withdrawn. It may be that the local planning authority, in good faith, believe that there is a breach of planning control, issue a stop notice, and then, upon investigation, find there is no breach of planning control and they withdraw the stop notice.
If the stop notice was withdrawn, compensation would be payable for any loss or damage directly attributable. This is provided in Clause 16. This subsection concerns the method of withdrawing the notice. Amendment 27 would provide for service on "all the persons" affected and not just "persons", thus avoiding the possibility of the notice being served on one person and not the others. This is because withdrawal of a stop notice on one person would be binding on all those concerned, and each one would require to consider his position over compensation, particularly considering that compensation depends upon expenditure during the period of operation of the notice.
If that expense were running, perhaps, for several days after withdrawal, compensation could not be claimed, because the expense would not be directly attributable to the lifting of the notice. Therefore, the date of the notice taking effect is very important, and Amendment 28 deals with that, providing that it would be from the date of service of the notice. If the effective date is the date that the notice is given, it may be some days before the notice reaches the person concerned. After a decision to withdraw is made, the notice may lie on a clerk's table for a whole weekend before being posted to the person concerned. He finds that for several days past he has been put to expense for which he cannot claim compensation. I hope, therefore, that that Amendment can be accepted.
11.30 p.m.
Let me give one example. Suppose there is a chalk pit being used for rubbish dumping; that the local planning authority believes there is a breach of planning control and serves a stop notice on both the mineral undertaker owning the chalk pit and the rubbish dumper; then finds that there is no breach of planning 687 control; that it was mistaken; and that it withdraws the stop notice on the rubbish dumper only. Meanwhile, the mineral undertaker is quite unaware that the stop notice has been withdrawn and he continues to spend money on trying to take measures to correct the alleged nuisance which turns out not to be a breach of planning control at all.
Therefore, on the two grounds, firstly that the mineral undertaker ought to know about the withdrawal of the stop notice, and secondly, that the date at which he knows about it ought to be the date on which the stop notice takes effect, I hope both these Amendments will be accepted.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a valid point here, I think. It is that the stop notice operates in personam and not in rent. It operates against the person on whom a particular notice is served, and I think that the inevitable consequence of that is that it should continue in force till that person has received notice that it has been withdrawn. Just as stop notices can begin to operate at different times, namely, the times when they are served on different persons, so I think it follows that they should cease to operate at different times, namely, the times when notices of that are served on the particular persons. That is why I cannot accept the first Amendment, because it would mean they could not operate till they had been served on all the people —and someone might have emigrated, and then we really would have an infinity of time in which the stop notice would continue to operate.
What I think we should do is to recast the wording a bit. We would accept Amendment No. 28, and I would advise the House to accept it. It would mean we would have to make some additional Amendment later in consequence. So I would advise the House to reject Amendment No. 27 and to accept Amendment No. 28.

§ Mr. Allason
In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.