NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION UNDER S. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1947 (Hansard, 11 June 1969)

§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 30 in page 70, line 39, at beginning insert: (1) A development order may make provision for requiring applicants for planning permission for development or for any class of development prescribed by or under the order to furnish at such time and to such persons as may be so prescribed such information with respect to the application as may be so prescribed.

§ Mr. Campbell
Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) raised, at the 11th sitting of the Committee, an important matter which the Minister of State when replying recognised as important and which his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) described in the same sense. We are now trying again, in a more limited way, to remedy a situation which both sides of the House, and certainly both sides of the Committee, recognise as needing improvement.
The position is that under Section 12 of the 1947 Act a request for planning permission to change the use of land can be submitted and granted without any of those who have a particular interest and who would be affected by what happens hearing about it until the whole matter has been decided. If the application for planning permission is refused and that refusal is accepted by the applicant, nothing more happens, but, 1518 if the applicant appeals, the matter goes to the Secretary of State, there is a public inquiry, and opportunity for those in the area who are affected to hear about it.
In our previous attempt to put this situation right my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) put forward a proposal which would have required wide publicity. All those who could be interested would have been required to be informed. This new Clause represents a more limited attempt. It proposes that only those who are owners or occupiers of adjoining property should be notified. Those people will clearly be interested, and probably more interested in the application than anyone else. We therefore hope that in the light of our previous discussion the Government will be able to look with favour on this proposal.
In that previous debate, the Minister of State said that he would see whether he could find a way of improving the position, and I note that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 30, which we are also discussing. No doubt the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of explaining that Amendment and of telling us whether it has the same purpose.
In Committee, the Minister of State found some fault with our new Clause—with the drafting, as usual, as well as with the substance—but I hope that in the light of our discussion he will find this present new Clause more acceptable. I trust that we can in some way make an alteration which will deal with a very difficult matter which has caused a great deal of grievance on various occasions in Scotland, when planning permission is granted, and other people owning adjoining property only hear later of the application without having any opportunity of objecting to it, or in any way make representations or, indeed, alter their own plans or themselves make any kind of provision to meet the new situation.

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)
I agree that this is a very important and difficult matter. It is not a close secret among local authorities in Scotland that the working party which examined the subject for two years found it to be one of the most difficult things to deal with 1519 We are all aware of the strength of feeling, and that feeling was demonstrated by a number of members of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Hon. Members on both sides accepted that it was not quite fair that the first information a householder should get of the fact that his next-door neighbour proposed to change the use of his premises should be a copy of the application to the building authority for structural alterations; in other words, that the building changes should be announced before the householder knew that any planning change had taken place, and that when he raised the matter he should be told that planning permission had been granted and that there was nothing he could do about it. It is because of this sense of grievance that we struggled with the subject in Committee, and are now discussing it again in connection with this new Clause and Amendment No. 30.
6.15 p.m.
There is an argument against doing anything at all because of the danger of complicating the machinery of planning and causing delay. There is always that argument, and I should like the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and his hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East to accept from me that it has been very difficult in the very short time that has been available—though that is not their fault—to consult everyone whom we would have liked to have consulted in order to get the matter absolutely right and agreed, and as sensible and workable as it could be.
If I criticise the new Clause, it is not because of its spirit but because I do not think it wise to include it in the Bill. It has a number of defects. For example, it would be wrong to leave any uncertainty about the method of notification. It would be wrong to leave uncertain what time should be given for notification to be effective. Nor can we just skate over the meaning of the word "adjoining". The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) would be the first to agree that the definition of "adjoining" as distinct from, say, "affected proprietors", or "interests of occupiers", and so on, is a matter of substance that is not covered by 1520 the new Clause. I do not blame the authors of the new Clause, but I do not think it wise to make it part of the Bill.
I suggest that, instead, we take the enabling power proposed by our Amendment No. 30 to Clause 77. That Amendment would give the Government the right to examine the subject with the many bodies concerned—and particularly when the Skeffington Committee on public participation in planning reports, as I hope it will do next month—to see how we shall apply the general principles in the Bill which seek to give better publicity to, and more public participation in, planning. I suggest that that would be the right way to go about things.
I do not think that the two sides differ in their objective in this matter of procedure. I accept that to adopt the enabling power would leave the matter to be resolved by regulation, but I hope that the Opposition will appreciate that there is no difference of view between us that something has to be done to try to meet the point, difficult as it is and complex as it is. It merits a good deal of examination by all those concerned, including those who, may I say, are not as convinced as we are that there is a balance in the case here, and who may not, as they feel, want to complicate the machinery of planning.
It is in that amicable spirit that I suggest that the Opposition should not press the new Clause but should, instead, agree to the enabling power proposed in our Amendment No. 30.

§ Mr. Wylie
We are grateful to the Minister of State for his remarks. Our difficulty in Committee, as he will be aware, is that we could only seek a remedy by means of a new Clause, which, of necessity, came at the end of our deliberations. I readily accept that the Government have not had a great deal of time to consider the implications of the proposal, though the need for a change is widely recognised. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and other members of the Committee, were quite clear about that.
The trouble is that this is an omission in the 1947 Act which has, for some reason, survived the vicissitudes of change and the endeavours of various Governments to put it right. I am glad that 1521 the Government recognise the need for a change here, and intend as far as they can to commit themselves to making that change.
The Clause is probably not in proper form because we do not have Parliamentary draftsmen on our side of the House, but we do our best. One should always recognise one's own limitations and I readily recognise that the Clause is not in proper form, but there are other repercussions which have to be considered. Suppose an application is made under Section 12 of the 1947 Act and intimated in the prescribed form and objections are lodged. Is the planning authority on its own initiative to have another inquiry? These ramifications of the proposal should be considered. I hope they will be considered and that it will be seen that on balance it is better to have this done by enabling powers in this way. Clearly there have to be discussions and the full implications should be thought out.
I am content with the assurance given by the Minister of State. I hope that this matter will not be allowed to remain in a pigeon-hole but that some regulations will follow in the reasonably near future because this is a problem which is very real and which affects many people, particularly in large urban areas. The solution to it is long overdue.

§ Mr. Gordon Campbell
I recognise that the Minister of State said that the Government had to deal with this matter in some haste. We saw the Government Amendment on the Notice Paper only yesterday. I recognise the reasons for that. My hon. and learned Friend has stated that we are prepared to accept the Government Amendment. We are glad that some progress is to be made. Clearly much has still to be thought out, but this marks a milestone on the way to getting the matter put right and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.