HC Deb 22 May 1968 vol 765 cc785-8

NEW POWERS TO AUTHORISE STOPPING-UP AND DIVERSION OF HIGHWAYS.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 61, line 10, at end insert 'or raising or lowering'.

I can be very brief. The only point I wish to have confirmed on this Amendment is the actual meaning of the words used in the Clause as it stands. I want to be satisfied that where one refers to "the stopping-up or diversion of any other highway" that would include the provision of a subway, or if necessary, a light footbridge in certain circumstances.

This is a problem which naturally affects a number of amenity and other bodies. I believe the definition is satisfactory if one takes into account certain provisions of the Transport Act.

Mr. Skeffington

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sub-section does apply the Transport Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to move, Amendment No. 148, in page 61, line 18, at end insert— Provided that in determining to make an Order under this subsection the Minister shall have regard to the interest of the users of the subsidiary highway. This is another rather small problem. As one reads the Clause it does seem to suggest that we are very concerned with the provisions for the safety and free movement of traffic on the main arterial roads, but are not at all concerned about the position of people wishing to use minor roads or even footpaths and who may be affected.

Again I believe that other provisions of other Acts may meet this point, but there are many bodies outside this House who are concerned about this matter, and I should like an assurance that the words proposed in my Amendment are not required to satisfy the object I am seeking.

Mr. Skeffington

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Subsection (4) of Clause 75 does apply Section 154 of the principal Act, and this enables the users he has in mind to be protected.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to move, in page 61, line 23, after 'footpath', insert 'or bridleway'.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Amendment we can take Government Amendment No. 150.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I believe this Amendment is acceptable to the Government. It is a minor Amendment merely ensuring that when we talk about the reduction of roads to footpaths we are also thinking of their reduction from roads to bridleways.

Mr. Skeffington

I would advise the House to accept this Amendment. It will make a useful addition.

Mr. Allason

In Committee we were told that this was in order to provide pedestrian precincts. I am surprised if now it turns out that it will also provide bridleways across the countryside. Is it really intended that this Clause should be used for closing roads and turning them into bridleways? This was not explained in Committee. When I read the Amendment I visualised camels being led through a bazaar.

Mr. Skeffington

Normally speaking, that provision will be an urban one. But it is conceivable—although it will only infrequently happen—that, on the edge of a town, there may be an order which would cover a bridleway. It is for that circumstance that we thought it a good idea to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page

We have heard a lot about bridleways on Amendment No. 149 but we have heard nothing about Amendment No. 150, which consists of ten lines or so.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not know what is worrying the hon. Gentleman about Amendment No. 150. Its effect is to change both the class of persons qualified to claim compensation and the basis on which the compensation shall be payable. If there is any specific question, I shall be glad to try to answer it.

Mr. Graham Page

This is an important alteration. In the Bill as drafted, any frontager on the highway could claim compensation. This is now being reduced to a claim for compensation for the interruption of access to the property. It may be the right thing to do; it may be the intention of the Government not to give compensation for any other damage to property adjoining that highway. [Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is interested in this, but if he is not perhaps he would like to go and listen to something else. It is difficult to put a point like this when there is mumbling from below the Gangway.

The alteration brought about by the Amendment is that compensation is now to be restricted to the loss of access to the property and will not apply to any other damage to the property.

Mr. MacDermot

I would not describe it as restrictive. On the contrary, it gives a more generous basis of compensation because, in addition to the compensation for the difference in the value of the land, it proposes to increase what can be claimed by way of disturbance so as to include any other loss or damage which is so attributable. We envisage that, in some of these cases, the real damage, as it were, which will be suffered will be the need to provide for other access and do works, perhaps, to provide access at the rear. It is this that we thought should be recoverable. We have thus extended the compensation provisions in this way. The model on which it is based, and the closest equivalent, is that compensation payable on a discontinuance order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 150, in page 61, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert— (3) Any person who at the time of an order under subsection (2) above has an interest in land having lawful access to a highway to which the order relates shall be entitled to be compensated by the local planning authority in respect of any depreciation in the value of his interest which is directly attributable to the order and any other loss or damage which is so attributable. In this subsection ' lawful access' means access authorised by planning permission granted under the principal Act or the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 or access in respect of which no such permission is necessary. (4) A claim for compensation under subsection (3) shall be made to the local planning authority within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Forward to