HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1494-7

Lords Amendment No. 132 proposed: In page 57, line 6, at end insert new Clause "M": M.—(1) An application for planning permission for development of any class to which section 15 of the principal Act (certain classes of planning application, prescribed by development order, to be supported by evidence of prior publicity) applies shall not be entertained by the local authority unless it is accompanied by one or other of the following certificates, signed by or on behalf of the applicant, that is to say—

  1. (a) a certificate stating that he has complied with subsection (2) of this section and when he did so; or
  2. (b) a certificate stating that he has been unable to comply with it because he has not 1495 such rights of access or other rights in respect of the land as would enable him to do so, but that he has taken such reasonable steps as are open to him (specifying them) to acquire those rights and has been unable to acquire them.

(2) In order to comply with this subsection a person must—

  1. (a) post on the land a notice, in such form as may be prescribed by a development order, stating that the application for planning permission is to be made; and
  2. (b) leave the notice in position for not less than seven days in a period of not more than one month immediately preceding the making of the application to the local planning authority.

(3) The said notice must be posted by affixing it firmly to some object on the land, and must be sited and displayed in such a way as to be easily visible and legible by members of the public without going on the land.

(4) The applicant shall not be treated as unable to comply with subsection (2) of this section if the notice is, without any fault or intention of his, removed, obscured or defaced before the seven days referred to in subsection (2)(b) above have elapsed, so long as he has taken reasonable steps for its protection and, if need be, replacement; and, if he has cause to rely on this subsection, his certificate under subsection (1) above shall state the relevant circumstances.

(5) The notice required by subsection (2) of this section shall (in addition to any other matters required to be contained therein) name a place within the locality where a copy of the application for planning permission, and of all plans and other documents submitted therewith, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during such period as may be specified in the notice, not being a period of less than twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is first posted.

(6) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with the requirements of this section and which contains a statement which he knows to be false and misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

(7) Any certificate issued for the purpose of this section shall be in such form as may be pescribed by a development order."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you can assist us. When we were dealing with Amendment No. 132, which we did when discussing Amendment No. 78, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Government were prepared to accept an Amendment to substitute 14 days for seven days. I was under the impression that the House had accepted that Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 78, but I mistook the voices as they were called.

I understand that the Government are prepared to accept 14 days for seven days in Lords Amendment No. 132, which will leave a discrepancy between the two Clauses. I wonder whether there is any possibility of going back to Amendment No. 78 and correcting it to what I think the whole House hoped was happening and inserting 14 days instead of seven.

Mr. Speaker

When the House has made up its mind, it has made up its mind. The House is very powerful, but one thing it cannot do is to alter a decision that it has made in the course of a debate, and, having voted one way, later unvote that. I cannot comment on whether the House ought to have done what the hon. Member says it should have done. I can only take what has been done. Whether the House will reject this Amendment and be consistent or accept it and be inconsistent, is not for me.

Mr. Greenwood

The confusion was shared on this side, Mr. Speaker. We owe the Opposition an apology for giving an undertaking that we would accept the Amendment and then inadvertently negativing it. A major part of the responsibility is on this side of the House. It would be embarrassing to have a different period in different parts of the Bill and it would be a great act of courtesy, and would facilitate the business, if the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to agree not to press his Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 132.

Mr. Graham Page

Further to that, I would wish, of course, to be courteous over this, but it is difficult to be courteous over an important point of law, in a Bill of this sort. I would have thought that there was a possibility in what happens after we have dealt with the Lords Amendments—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot argue about the horse that has gone out of the stable. He can argue about this one if he likes, but what is done is done. Does he wish to move his Amendment to line 20 of the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Graham Page

In the circumstances, no, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.