Clause 66. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ' permission ' to ' have ' in line 38 and insert 'but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him, and— (a) the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order'. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. The intention is to secure that the new procedure introduced by this Clause for enabling unopposed revocation and modification orders to take effect without being confirmed works in the way intended without undue complication.

Amendment No. 143 secures an improvement in this way and does two things. First, the insertion of the words but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him is designed to make it clear that, so long as the order is in draft form, it has not been submitted in the sense that it has to be confirmed by the Minister. Second, it spells out the categories of persons to receive notices in a clear way so that the rights of those concerned will be fully known, not by reference to Clause 27(3), but as they appear in the Amendment in these words: the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order". Amendment 144 makes certain that the essential precondition for operating the Clause is quite clear; that is, that the affected persons do not object to the order. The existing reference to the parties not wishing to be heard is not here, since the fact that they do not want a hearing does not necessarily preclude their being opposed to the order, 784 and it is essential for the whole of this part of the Clause that the order to be made is unopposed.

Amendment 145 removes the last two lines of the existing subsection (2) and inserts a new subsection putting the authority under a specific duty to serve notice on the affected parties on the same lines as the advertisement required under the same subsection. In addition, the notices are to state that, in accordance with subsection (5), no compensation will be payable if the affected parties do not ask the Minister for a hearing and the order, therefore, takes effect without being confirmed by the Minister. If there is any question of a hearing, the procedure under this part of the Clause does not operate.

§ Mr. Graham Page

We are here dealing with an important matter. It is a new procedure whereby the local planning authority could, if it did not carry it out with great care and if the procedure was not laid down for the full protection of the individual, deprive him of the right to compensation on revocation of planning permission. With these Amendments, there is full protection for the individual, so long as the procedure does make certain that the individual knows what rights he is giving up. He is giving up the right to compensation for revocation of a planning permission. If he is satisfied that there is no compensation he can claim, that he has not incurred any expense he can recover on revocation, and if he makes that known to the local planning authority, clearly then the procedure should work. If it does work successfully it is going to save a lot of trouble to the local planning authority, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has got the Amendments right. I have not been able to pick a hole in them, anyway.