STOPPING UP PRIVATE ACCESS TO PREMISES BY AGREEMENT (Hansard, 10 March 1971)

§ Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 40, leave out '(a)'.

Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss with it Amendment No. 3, in line 43, leave out from 'any' to 'suffered' in line 45 and insert: 'highway; and an agreement under this section may make provision for the payment by the 469 highway authority to the other party of compensation in respect of the damage (if any)'. Amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'access' to end of line 8.

Amendment No. 5, in Clause 7, page 6, line 27, at end insert: (2) Where a private means of access to any premises is proposed to be stopped up by virtue of section 2 of this Act, section 3 thereof or section 18 of the principal Act and another means of access to those premises from a highway is available or is to be provided, then, in determining for the purposes of the said section 2 or 3 or the said section 18 whether that other means of access is, or, as the case may be, will be, reasonably convenient, the Secretary of State, or, in the case of an order under the said section 2 which a local highway authority are empowered to confirm, that authority, shall have regard to the need, if any, for a means of access from the highway to different places on those premises and to any roads, paths or other ways on those or other premises which are capable of providing such a means. (3) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that the provision of a new means of access to any premises from a highway under or by virtue of a provision of this Act or section 18 of the principal Act includes the provision of a road, path or other way on those or any other premises. The main Amendment is No. 3, and it has two separate objectives. First, it substitutes "highway" for public right of way on foot", and this corresponds to the Amendment to which we have just agreed in Clause 4. The words occur again in Clause 5, and it is right to remove any confusion and to make the wording standard in Clauses 4 and 5.

Secondly, the Amendment presents in a different way the provisions for compensation. The view was expressed in Committee that it was wrong to provide specifically for abatement of compensation to take account of benefits to the owner or occupier while omitting to deal specifically for a statement of compensafully any damage suffered. I recall that I said on that occasion that it was right either to show the other side of the coin or to delete the provision for abatement altogether.

It is impractical to specify every conceivable element of depreciation which should be taken into account, and it has been deemed best simply to provide that an agreement concerning the stopping up of a private access to premises may provide for the payment of compensation for consequential damage. That is exactly what Amendment No. 3 does. Amend- 470 ments Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential on Amendment No. 3.

I turn, then, to Amendment No. 5. This again was raised in Committee, and again it has two objectives. First, it provides that in considering whether another new or existing means of access is reasonably convenient or is a reasonably convenient alternative for one being stopped up under Clause 2, Clause 3 or Section 18 of the 1959 Act, the confirming authority should have regard to the possible need for access to different places on the premises and to roads and paths on those or other premises capable of providing it.

Secondly, the Amendment makes clear that references to the provisions of new means of access in the Bill or again in Section 18 of the 1959 Act are to be considered as including a reference to the provision of ways communicating with the internal ways, if any, within the premises.

I hope that we have now provided for a full consideration of the internal communications system when considering whether a means of access is a reasonably convenient alternative to that which is being closed.

I am grateful to hon. Members who took part in the debate in Committee for raising this point. I hope that we have now got it right. We are giving every reasonable consideration to the injury which may be caused to any landowner or land occupier when his right of access is closed. We do not want to say, "You have a reasonable alternative", unless that reasonable alternative enables him to get about reasonably within his own property. It is saying not, "You can get on to your property", but, "You can get on to your property in the right place to communicate with the roads within your property."

§ Mr. Mulley

Almost all the Amendments which the Minister has put down have been in response to points raised in Committee, and I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the careful and sympathetic consideration which he has given to those points. I ask the hon. Gentleman to understand that if I make a comprehensive vote of thanks now I shall not need to rise on every drafting Amendment to express our appreciation.

I should also like to thank the officials of the hon. Gentleman's Department. I 471 know that when we make a point in a short debate in Committee it often leads to a great deal of work for the hon. Gentleman's advisers.

I agree that these Amendments greatly clarify the position. I think that the Bill is better for them having been moved. I support them.