TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL. (Hansard, 7 July 1947)

HL Deb 07 July 1947 vol 150 cc3-28 3

§ 2.37 p.m.

§ House again in Committee (according to Order).

§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

§ Clause III:

§ Special provisions as to London.

§ 111.—(1) The local planning authority for the administrative county of London shall be the London County Council.

§ (2) In relation to land in the administrative county of London, sections eighteen, thirty-seven and thirty-eight of this Act shall have effect as if for references therein to the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated there were substituted references—

(a) in the case of land in the City of London, to the Common Council of that City;
(b) in the case of any other land, to the London County Council,

and sections twenty-seven, twenty-eight, thirty-nine, forty and ninety-eight of this Act and the Sixth and Tenth Schedules to this Act shall have effect as if any reference therein to the council of any county borough or county district included a reference to the Common Council of the City of London and to the council of any metropolitan borough:

§ Provided that the council of a metropolitan borough shall not, except with the consent of the London County Council, be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under subsection (3) of section thirty-seven of this Act.

§ (5) For the purposes of section forty-six of this Act the appropriate council, in relation to land in the administrative county of London, shall be—

(a) in the case of land in the City of London, the Common Council of that City;
(b) in the case of any other land, the council of the metropolitan borough in which the land is situated,

and in relation to any such land the said section forty-six shall have effect as if for references therein to the Public Health Act, 1875, and sections one hundred and fifty and one hundred and fifty-one of that Act there were substituted references to the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1893, and to section one hundred and five of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, section seventy-seven of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862, and the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, Amendment Act, 1890.

§ LORD BROADBRIDGE moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the local planning authority for the City of London shall be the Common Council of that City and for the County of London shall be the London County Council. 4 The noble Lord said: I can say at once that I am not proposing to make any lengthy remarks in moving this Amendment, as I dealt somewhat fully with the position on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am presuming that the great, long history of our capital city is well known and appreciated by your Lordships. Therefore, I am confining my remarks to the salient points without any undue elaboration.

§ If it were necessary—and I do not think it is—for me to give chapter and verse of the capacity of the Common Council of the City of London to be its own town planning authority, it would require, not minutes or hours, but probably days to enumerate adequately the great record of a thousand years of historic work, not only for the City but for the country and the Empire. But for the machine majority of the Government in another place, it would undoubtedly have been unnecessary for me to move this Amendment to-day. On the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, expressed his regret that under the provisions of the Bill the City of London would lose some of its planning powers; and another noble Lord—I think it was Lord Addington—expressed the hope that some means would be found whereby the City would retain its planning powers, but with adequate co-ordination, not only for planning the City area, but for the larger area for which the London County Council is responsible. That is the object of this Amendment.

§ Under the Bill as it now stands, the planning powers conferred upon the City of London by the Act of 1932, and confirmed by the Act of 1944, will be transferred, if unamended, to the London County Council. The intention of this Amendment is to leave the City of London with its planning powers, but to require the Common Council to obtain the approval of the London County Council to their development plan before it is submitted to the Ministry. Therefore, under this Amendment there can be no possibility of danger of the Common Council preparing a plan without regard to the needs of the remainder of the administrative county, because the London County Council will have a statutory right to approve the plan before it goes to the Minister. The Common 5 Council's desire to retain its planning powers does not rest solely on tradition or prestige, great as those reasons are. The City of London presents a special planning problem, and is quite different from the metropolitan boroughs or, in fact, any other area in the British Isles. Therefore, a separate plan is necessary.

§ May I remind your Lordships that the City contains a large number of ancient and historic buildings? To mention a few, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Guildhall, the Royal Exchange, the Mansion House, the College of Heralds, Christopher Wren's churches and Halls of the City Guilds. Then, in addition, there are the great business interests, the Bank of England, the Stock Exchange, Lloyds, Baltic House, the head offices of the great banks, insurance companies and shipping companies. The City has its own Courts of Justice as well as its own markets. The present Minister and his predecessor have urged the Common Council to proceed with all possible speed with their plan, and the task has been finished with the advice and help of those great planning experts, Dr. Holden and Professor Holford. If this plan had to be started all over again it would delay the reconstruction of the City, not only for a year but for many years. This would be intolerable to merchants whose offices have been devastated and to owners of property who cannot even design the reconstruction of their buildings. Some of the greatest successes in business and in life generally have been due to the spirit of compromise and good will. Here is an endeavour to bring that about, and I hope this Amendment will be received in that spirit and accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 118, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Broadbridge.)

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
I would like in one word to support the eloquent plea of the noble Lord, and to express the earnest hope that the Government will see their way to accept the compromise which has been suggested.

§ 2.43 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)
No one can complain of the spirit and temper in which the noble Lord moved this Amendment. Knowing his close connexion with the city for many years and bearing in mind that he has held 6 That most highly honourable position of Lord Mayor, one would expect him to voice the claims of the City in this House. I find myself in a very embarrassing position in regard to this matter. I say at once that I am proud to be a Freeman of the City of London, and. I am very proud of my City connexions. I think most members of your Lordships' House who have held high office realize what the City stands for in our public life. We realize that it does enshrine the traditions of honesty, fair play and fair dealing which have made London the most important trading centre of the world. It is the very-heart of London with which we are dealing here.
Therefore, from that point of view, my sympathies go out to the City. On the other hand, my sympathies also go out to the London County Council, because we are entrusting them with the most difficult task with which any body of men haw ever been entrusted, which is the reorganization and planning of a new, better and more worthy London. I must say—and I am moved to say this after going down to see the Wimbledon lawn tennis finals on Saturday—that on going through the Wandsworth Road, I saw the work the London County Council are doing. The quality of the flats they are building and the architecture, from the æsthetic point of view, are quite first rate. I think they need the support and sympathy of all of us in their immense task. The only part of the speech of the noble Lord with which I did not agree was his reference to the fact that the City has now got its plan and the statement that the task is finished. This task will never be finished. We can plan for the next fifty years and at the end of fifty years, although we shall not be here to hear about it, there will still be a problem before the planners of the future.
I am sorry, as I have said, that this controversy has arisen. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, has spoken and the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is sitting here and his eagle eye might well be upon me. I feel like the man in The Beggar's Opera.
How happy could I be with either, were t'other dear charmer away! Well, both the charmers are here. The decision we have taken in this Bill has not been lightly taken. I have no secrets from your Lordships upon this matter. We regarded this as a matter of such importance 7 that we thought it was a position which called for a solution by the Cabinet. It is not the decision of the Minister; it is the decision of the Cabinet itself, and that decision is embodied in this Bill. Therefore, I have no scope; I have no latitude at all. I am bound to say that we must adhere to our Bill and the net result of that is as follows. The City does maintain a special position—not, it is true, its planning, which only came to the City in 1932, fifteen years ago, and what is fifteen years when we look back to the dim and ancient history for which the City stands in our national life? But the London County Council are required to consult the City before submitting a plan or amendment to a plan relating to the City. They are required to delegate to the City such functions under Part III as may be prescribed by regulations. They are required to consult the City on all applications for permission which are not delegated and before they even submit a tree preservation order or a building preservation order, and the City remains the authority for carrying out the plan; that is, for acquiring land, disposing of it and developing it.
That is the position to which we must adhere. But whilst we adhere to this position I would say that to my mind everything depends upon the spirit, the good will and the sympathy with which these functions are carried out. Nothing cheered me more than the concluding words of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, when he spoke en this matter on the Second Reading. If I may, I will quote his words. He said this: Finally, I do not doubt that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book, … the London County Council and the City Corporation will be able to co-operate in a spirit of mutual respect in laying the foundations of a better and finer London, wherein the City will retain its historic place. That is what the noble Lord said, and I know the noble Lord well enough to know that when he says a thing like that he means it. For that reason I would make this appeal to the noble Lord, and to noble Lords in all parts of the House. I believe that this is an illustration of one of those problems when the least said is soonest mended. I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. Situated as I am, I make that request to him, because I rely on the spirit which was behind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Latham.
8 I sincerely hope that under this new dispensation the City and the County of London will co-operate by mutual effort and mutual endeavour to bring about a scheme whereby London, including the City—which loses, let me tell the noble Lord opposite, none of those qualities which endear her so much to all persons who take part in public life—will benefit. I think the most useful service I can render to-day is to ask noble Lords in all quarters of your Lordships' House, if the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, will withdraw his Amendment, to say nothing more about it. I offer this suggestion in the sincere and earnest hope that what was said will be translated into action.

§ 2.51 p.m.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I am one of those who are sorry that in the Bill as it comes before us these functions are taken away from the City of London. It is quite true that they are not in the same category as some of the more historic functions, because they did not have them before 1932—which, if I remember aright, was the occasion of the first Town and Country Planning Bill. There is no doubt in my mind—though people who come from Plymouth or Coventry, or some other City, even Bristol, may disagree with me —that the City of London took the biggest brunt of the bombing attack, first, with the bombs and later with the flying bombs and the rockets. Nowhere else have I seen such large areas of devastation, except in the cities and towns of Germany itself. Nowhere have I seen such large heaps of rubble as in the City of London. I should have liked to see the City authority going ahead and being allowed to replan their square mile.
However, this problem—though I must say I think that a good compromise was put forward in this Amendment—was, after all, one of those that we have got to face. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, likened himself to the character MacHeath in The Beggar's Opera; I must say that he is in my opinion more like Ulysses going between Scylla and Charybdis tying himself to the the mast so that he would not jump out over the side of the boat, as he was prompted to do. The noble and learned Viscount has been quite frank. I hope and believe that the words he quoted from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, will come to pass, and that this matter can now 9 go ahead without friction. It is in that spirit that we should deal with this matter, and not make what has flared up into a quite bitter little affair any more bitter by anything we may do.
This will not be the last Town and Country Planning Bill. Anyone who introduces one always thinks he has said the last word; but another Bill will come along. Those who may then be in power may have to see whether this thing is working in the right spirit between the London County Council and the City of London Corporation. If not, that will be another of the points in this Bill that may have to be amended in future legislation. My advice certainly would be to leave the matter and see how it will work, in the hope that the planning of the City of London in the way that we all want to see it will go ahead without friction, and with good and great results. For that reason I do not think we should press this Amendment to a Division.

§ LORD BROADBRIDGE
I have listened very carefully to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and have been much impressed by what both of them have said. When one is left in charge of an Amendment of this description one has a sense of great responsibility. There are some who would say that, it I adopted the suggestion put forward, I should be running away from my Amendment. There are others who know what it is to exercise tact and diplomacy who would probably applaud me. I have therefore to decide what course I want to pursue; and I have come to the conclusion that the proper course in the interest of the City—and that is all I have to consider, because this is not a personal matter—is to adopt the suggestion and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 2.56 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The first of the three Amendments in my name is a consequential Amendment to correct a drafting error. The Bill contains, in Clause 98, the usual default powers for the Minister to act if the appropriate local authority fails to perform its functions under the Bill, but in relation to the purchase of land the Bill as drafted makes the default power, as regards London, operate against the Common Council of 10 the City and the metropolitan boroughs, instead of the City and the London County Council. The metropolitan boroughs have, of course, no general power of purchase other than with the consent of the London County Council and the default power must therefore operate against the London County Council and not time metropolitan boroughs. The Amendments put this right. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 118 line 34 leave out ("and thirty-eight") and insert ("thirty-eight and ninety-eight").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next two Amendments are consequential and drafting respectively. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 118, line 42, leave out ("forty and ninety-eight") and insert ("and forty").

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 119, line 1, leave oat ("Provided that") and insert ("(3)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out the proviso in Subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I am speaking on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. They are already concerned with the question of London and the administration of the planning Acts. I would like to say that it is my intention to respond to the appeal which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in the discussion on the Amendment in connexion with the City of London. The Lord Chancellor made an eloquent appeal for compromise and conciliation in all matters that concern planning in London. Some of the subsequent Amendments in my name might be interpreted as asking for the metropolitan boroughs something they have not got, and I shall in due course ask leave to move certain other Amendments. I say that by way of preface, because I do not want to be backward on behalf of the metropolitan boroughs in joining in any hope that we may have of succeeding in working with the greatest cordiality with the County Council.

§ This Amendment is a little bit different, because it seems to me that this goes 11 beyond the present position and if the proviso is left in the Bill it would produce a state of affairs which really would not be right. This proviso, which has now been converted by the drafting Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount into a subsection, was, I am told, introduced rather late in the proceedings, or was not in the Bill when it was printed and introduced into another place. It would, so it seems to me, produce a very extraordinary situation. Subsection (2) of Clause III refers to compulsory purchase of land for development, and this clause must be read in connexion with Clause 37. Subsection (3) of Clause 37 reads: Where, under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister has power to authorize the council of a county borough or county district to acquire any land compulsorily, he may, if after consultation with that council and, in the case of land in a county, with the council of that county, he thinks it expedient so to do, authorize the land to be so acquired by any other local authority instead of by that council. That means that, if the Minister thinks it appropriate to do so, he can authorize the compulsory purchase of land for development purposes by the metropolitan borough councils instead of by the County Council. He has to consult with the County Council first, but when we come to this new subsection, which was a proviso in Clause III, it interposes a complete veto by the County Council; it puts the County Council in a position to veto a possible action by the Minister. I should quite agree that consultation is appropriate, but I think veto by the County Council is inappropriate. I rather hope that there may be some slight misunderstanding here owing to this having been introduced at the later stage. I think everybody agrees that the borough councils are appropriate, both for development and for purchase of open spaces in small areas by agreement with the County Council. Everybody agrees that the London County Council are the over-all planning authority, and we do not seek to dispute that, but I think it is wrong to leave in the Act a position of veto by the County Council, not only veto of a borough council but veto of an action by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Latham, if he would permit me to refer to him in those terms, was, I believe, described as a Czar in another place, and 12 certainly there seems to be some justification for that here, because he seeks to introduce into this Bill a veto such as has been introduced into the proceedings of the United Nations. I hope that there is some misunderstanding, and I beg leave to move the deletion of those words. Page 119, leave out lines 1 to 4.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

§ LORD LATHAM
If I may say so, I do not pretend to rise in the role of a Czar, neither do I wish to exercise the power of veto, but I think your Lordships should understand what is the purpose of this Amendment, and what is the object sought in the Bill as drafted. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, there is a provision which enables a metropolitan borough council to be a development and reconstruction authority at the option, and with the consent, of the London County Council. I think your Lordships will appreciate that if there is to be coordinated and comprehensive planning in London, you cannot have 28 metropolitan borough councils each having the right to carry on development, reconstruction and replanning, and it was with agreement and after much negotiation, for which I was very largely responsible, that Clause 56 was introduced into the 1944 Act, which gives the County Council power to authorize a borough council to carry out reconstruction and redevelopment and, for that purpose, to enable them to become a planning authority entitled to the grants provided under the 1944 Act. It is the case—and I will be perfectly candid—that up to the moment no occasion has arisen where such power could be properly given to a borough council, not because there were not schemes which a borough council could properly have undertaken, but because to have given that consent, in these difficult days of shortage of material and of labour, would have resulted in cutting right across what are regarded, not only by the London County Council but by the Ministers, as being the proper priorities to be regarded and observed in connexion with rebuilding and reconstruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, mentioned open spaces. I am sure he has been advised that there have been conversations with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing joint Committee which have resulted in an agreement as regards the powers of the metropolitan boroughs, to acquire limited open spaces. 13 The generally accepted procedure is that the metropolitan borough council acquires and maintains small open spaces up to, roughly speaking, two acres, and that the London County Council should be responsible for the provision of larger areas. That is not done only because of prestige, or efficiency, or of desirability or convenience, but also in order that the incidence of cost may be spread over the whole of London rather than fall upon any particular borough. Be it remembered that it is precisely in the poorest boroughs that the need for open spaces is the most acute.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, says that he is speaking on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. I cannot dispute that, but I only want to make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that, so far as I know—and I inquired only as recently as this morning—no representations at all have been made, at all events to the London County Council, on this particular matter. I am surprised to find that proposals should now be submitted alleged to be supported, and indeed to be submitted, at the instance of the Standing Joint Committee, when the London County Council has had no intimation or notice at all The Bill as drafted will give the metropolitan boroughs all the powers that they need. The arrangements which are in existence between the County Council and the metropolitan boroughs are such as, in my submission, operate to the advantage of convenience and expedition in redevelopment and replanning in London, and there is really no merit in the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The effect of the Amendment which is proposed by the noble Lord would be that the Minister would be able to authorize a metropolitan borough council to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of development without the previous consent of the London County Council. I think that would be bad, and I think it would be bad for this reason. It is essential that the London County Council, as things are, should be able to control the acquisition and development of land by metropolitan boroughs, because the problem of replanning London is so vast that you must have, in my view, one authority which is in a position to draw 14 up a co-ordinated programme and settle the priorities under which all areas should be dealt with. This is of special importance at the present time, when labour and materials for rebuilding will be scarce, and we must see that means are devised to ensure that they are used on those projects which need them most. Where the resources of the metropolitan boroughs can be used to harmonize with the London County Council's plans, I feel sure that the London County Council will readily agree that they should co-operate as fully as they can. But if each metropolitan borough were enabled to initiate its own separate reconstruction schemes, then one of two things would happen: either the Minister would have to take over the task of programming and co-ordinating the reconstruction of London—and that is net a job for the Minister, but essentially one for the London County Council—or there would be a danger of available resources being used on projects which are not of the first urgency, to the detriment of other parts of the country.
I must point out to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that this Bill does no more than preserve, in substance, the position that was created under the 1944 Act. Under Section 56 (1) of that Act the local planning authority for the areas of the metropolitan boroughs is the London County Council, but on the application of the London County Council the Minister may authorize the appropriate metropolitan borough to acquire land and secure its development. The present clause changes the procedure, in that it enables the application to come direct from the metropolitan borough. This is a matter on which I am certain that we ought to stand. I do not feel that you will get proper, or any, replanning of London unless you entrust to one authority the responsibility for that planning. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
In view of the explanation which has been given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next Amendment is designed to enable the metropolitan borough councils to acquire land for open spaces after consultation 15 with, instead of obtaining the consent of, the London County Council. The London County Council, I happen to know, are in entire agreement with this Amendment and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 119, line 19, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 22 and insert ("before submitting a compulsory purchase order to the Minister of Health under this subsection the council of a metropolitan borough shall consult with the London County Council.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (5) after "substituted," to insert "in the case of land in the City of London, references to the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897, and to Sections one hundred and twenty-six to one hundred and twenty-eight of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, and in the case of any other land." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to enable the powers of Clause 46, which deals with the construction and improvement of private streets, to be exercised by the City of London. The position is that Clause III (5) purports to do this already, but it is doubtful whether it succeeds in doing so since it applies, in substitution for the private street works code, contained in the Public Health Act, 1875, which does not apply to London, Section 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, as extended by later enactments. It appears, however, that Section 105 of the 1855 Act does not apply to the City, and consequently it is to make it plain that this power is to be exercised by the City that this Amendment is moved.

§ Amendment moved— Page 119, line 42, after ("substituted") insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.16 p.m.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (10), to insert: Provided that a development order shall prescribe for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection applications of any of the following classes—

(a) Applications for permission to develop where the development would materially con- 16 flict with the existing development in the locality;
(b) Applications for permission to develop in any part of a Metropolitan Borough in respect of which the Council of the Borough have notified the London County Council that they propose to construct or widen streets."

§ The noble Lord said: In support of this Amendment I pray in aid what the noble and learned Viscount said to the effect that in this Bill we are seeking to preserve the substance of the position under the 1944 Act. This would only preserve for the metropolitan boroughs that which they have already, and I think that it ought to be in the Bill. The metropolitan boroughs are entitled to consultation by the London County Council only so far as the Minister prescribes it—that is, earlier in the clause—and as the metropolitan boroughs always have been consulted in this particular way, I think that it ought to go in the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 121, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

§ LORD LATHAM
The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh does no more than set out what is the present practice, but I do not believe—I speak here subject to correction —that the present practice rests upon any statutory enactment or order. It may well be that if that be the case it would be undesirable to limit to the Minister's prescription those classes of applications for permission and that it would be well that they should be prescribed in the Statute rather than be left for him to settle and specify in the orders to be made. But, in principle, I can say that the London County Council at present have no intention of departing from their former practice of consulting the metropolitan borough councils on these two specified classes of application, and I must, therefore, leave it to the noble and learned Viscount to say what is the view of the Government.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, perhaps I may be allowed to point out that this in fact reproduces the wording of the Town and Country Planning General Interim Development Order, 1946, Article 15, made under the 1932 Act. I think it is only right that it should go into the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I agree that the Interim Development Order prescribes consultation on the classes of applications which are those specified in the present Amendment. Therefore, it is true that the Amendment is doing nothing more than to write into the Bill what is the current practice at the present time. Although that is true, I am by no means certain that those classes of application which are suitable at present will be suitable in future. Under the new planning system with its much greater scope for replanning and redevelopment, you may want something much wider and it may be desirable to extend the present arrangement. But I cannot pretend at the moment that it is possible to foresee future requirements.
Should we be wise to depart from the principle of the present time by which these things are settled by the Interim Development Order and to insert them finally and rigidly in the Bill itself? We think it would be better to leave it to the Development Order to prescribe the classes. We have no doubt they will probably be the same as they are to-day.
It is better to leave it to the Development Order, and experience may show whether we want to consider enlarging these classes or reducing them or altering them. To secure the necessary flexibility we should leave it to the Development Order, which is the present practice, rather than have it rigidly fixed in the Bill. We think, moreover, that it would be very undesirable to attempt to settle it without consulting both parties concerned, the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs, and before we proceed to an interim development order we shall consult these two bodies. Therefore both for reasons of greater flexibility and convenience of the system of consulting all Parties, I suggest that the last thing to do is to fix it in the Bill, when it becomes fixed and rigid, but to leave it to the Development Order.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
In view of the noble and learned Viscount's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause III, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 113, to insert the following new clause:

§ Application to land regulated by special enactments.

§ ".—(1) For the avoidance of doubt is hereby declared that the provisions of this Act, and any restrictions or powers thereby imposed or conferred in relation to land, apply and may be exercised in relation to any land notwithstanding that provision is made by any enactment in force at the passing of this Act, or by any local Act passed at any time during the present Session of Parliament, for authorising or regulating any development of the land.

§ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, references in any enactment contained in a local Act (including any such Act passed as aforesaid) to Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, shall be construed—

(a) in relation to compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition of land there-under in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing of this Act, as a reference to the said Part II as amended by this Act;
(b) in relation to compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition of land there-under in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act, as a reference to Part V of this Act:

Provided that no such enactment shall, by virtue of this subsection, be construed as excluding the application of the said Part V in relation to compensation payable in respect of any compulsory acquisition of land."

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment, together with the Amendment already passed at page 42, line 42, to leave out Clause 34, is to expand Clause 34 of the Bill and transfer it to Part X. The operation of that clause as it stands has become some-what restricted by an accident, the splitting into two parts during the passage of the Bill in the Commons of what was originally a single part of the Bill. In the result, although Clause 34 makes it clear that planning permission must be obtained under Part III for any development of land notwithstanding that it is specifically authorized by special Act, the clause no longer makes it clear that a development plan can provide for the development of land regulated by a special Act although that development is inconsistent with any restriction imposed by the local Act. Accordingly, it is now proposed to move Clause 34 to the end of the Bill, and make it clear that not only Part III but all provisions of the Bill, including, of course, the obligation 19 to pay a development charge where planning permission is granted, apply to all land in spite of any special Act.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 113 to insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
As I understand it, this means that, whether or not there was some local Act, any new, land acquired by that authority now will have to pay compensation laid down by this measure and they will not be able to shelter under the local Act and go back to the 1939 value. That was a point we had made at one stage in the discussions on this Bill, and we are very much obliged to the Government for meeting it.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.25 p.m.

§ Clause 114:

§ Interpretation.

§ 114.—(1) In this Act, except so far as the contrary is provided or the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:

§ "agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly;

§ "area of extensive war damage "and" area of bad lay-out or obsolete development" mean an area comprising land shown to the satisfaction of the Minister to have sustained war damage or, as the case may be, to be badly laid out or of obsolete development, whether with or without other land contiguous or adjacent thereto, being an area which is defined by a development plan as an area of comprehensive development;

§ "building" includes any structure or erection and any part of a building as so defined, but does not include plant or machinery comprised in a building;

§ "building operations" does not include works of decoration, maintenance, improvement or other alteration, being works affecting only the interior of buildings, but except as aforesaid includes rebuilding operations, structural alterations of or additions to buildings, and other works materially affecting the design or external appearance of buildings;

§ "development" has the meaning assigned to it by Section eleven of this Act, and "develop" shall be construed accordingly;

§ "development plan" has the meaning assigned to it by Section five of this Act, and includes a plan made under subsection (4) of that section;

§ "engineering operations" includes the making of excavations and the formation or laying out of means of access to highways;

§ THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in the definition of "agriculture," after "includes," to insert "forestry." The noble Lord said: This simple Amendment speaks for itself. The definition of "agriculture" includes "the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes." It does not include land which is used for forestry purposes. That does not seem to be included anywhere in the Bill. I draw your Lordships attention to the words I have quoted. From them I infer that the use of land for forestry is conceded to be an agricultural purpose, which of course it is, and as there is a later Amendment in my name which the noble and learned Viscount is to accept, I hope he might be disposed to accept this one.

§ Amendment moved— Page 122, line 29, after ("includes") insert ("forestry").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment, I am assured, is unnecessary. The purpose of the Amendment is to take forestry out of planning control but forestry is already outside planning control to the same extent as agriculture, under paragraph (e) of the proviso to Clause 11 (2). If the noble Lord will turn to page 12 of the Bill he will see at line 6: Provided that the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the land "… and underneath paragraph (e), which says: the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture or forestry (including afforestation), and the use for any of those purposes of any building occupied together with land so used. The use of land for forestry does not, and cannot, involve any development charge.

THE EARL OF RADNOR
I had hoped the noble and learned Viscount would 21 accept the Amendment for at least the avoidance of doubt, but in view of his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD HENDERSON
This and the two next Government Amendments are drafting Amendments to the definition of "area of extensive war damage" ("blitz") and "area of bad lay-out or obsolete development," which is blight. I merely give the explanation because I I am trying to define why the Amendments are necessary. The main purpose of the Amendments is to distinguish the "blitz" area or the blight area from the area defined in a plan as "an area of comprehensive development." The definition as drafted suggests that the two must be co-extensive. The Amendments make it clear that that is not so.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 9, leave out ("comprising") and insert ("consisting of.")—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON moved, in the definition of "area of extensive war damage," and "area of bad layout or obsolete development," after "sustained," to insert "extensive." The noble Lord said: This is almost a drafting Amendment. It seems wrong to me that whereas extensive war damage should be defined as an area of war damage, it appears that if only one bomb has fallen in a neighbourhood and although the rest is quite undamaged, the area can be designated for comprehensive redevelopment. I imagine that the real purpose of the definition is that extensive war damage should only apply to badly "blitzed" areas.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 10, after ("sustained") insert ("extensive.")—(Lord Carrington.)

§ LORD HENDERSON
I have a similar difficulty to that of the noble Lord. An area of extensive war damage is, of course, an area of extensive war damage, which is how the noble Lord would make the definition read. It is a little complicated, but an area of extensive war damage is an area which needs comprehensive development primarily because of the effects of war damage. The area of comprehensive development is not necessarily limited to the area of war damage; it 22 may include adjacent land as part of the development scheme. There may be one extensive tract of war damage or a number of separate patches, but so long as the area needs comprehensive development primarily because of war damage it should be eligible for grant at the higher rate for blitzed areas. The only effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, so far as I can see, would be to exclude some areas from the higher grants and limit them to the lower blight category, and I am sure that is not what the noble Lord has in mind.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
I am very grateful for the explanation and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in the definition of "area of extensive war damage," after "development," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "and not being of architectural or historic interest." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in my name. I do not want to repeat what I said on an earlier occasion when I urged that local authorities were not necessarily the best and only guardians of buildings of historic interest. But, without prejudice to the generality of what I said on that occasion, I would like to say that I am particularly struck by the way in which small good areas are apt to be considered areas of obsolete development by local authorities. I have noticed that very often in the case of historic boroughs which have been absorbed into greater areas, the old inhabitants who are frequently people of quite small means, whose families have dwelt in those places for generations, are very much affected and sorry when some scheme of modern development sweeps away some small eighteenth century houses or buildings of that kind. One would think that one could do very much better by leaving them rather than improving them. That is the feeling I have in moving this Amendment. I would like to see the Office of Works consulted before any area of a bad lay-out or obsolete development containing buildings of ancient or historical interest is so treated and swept away. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 12, after ("development") insert ("and not being of architectural or historical interest").—(Lord Saltoun.)

§ LORD HENDERSON
I am afraid I must resist this Amendment. In considering whether to authorize the purchase and redevelopment of an area, the Minister must weigh in the balance all relevant factors, including the desirability of preventing unnecessary destruction of buildings of architectural and historic interest. It must be assumed that no Minister would allow the wanton destruclion of whole areas of such buildings. It is not possible to say, however, that there will never be a case where it is desirable on balance to sacrifice the historic interest for the sake of the present inhabitants; such a case might indeed arise. It would, therefore, be wrong to tie the Minister's hands by a statutory provision which would prevent him even from considering such a case on its merits. But, in any event, the wording is much too wide, for it would be difficult to find any area as to which somebody could not claim that it included a building of historic interest, even though its only claim to fame was the story that some V.I.P. had slept there!

LORD SALTOUN
I do not wish to press my Amendment on the Government. I am a little afraid sometimes that planners in their enthusiasm are rather like the words in Tennyson's poem which say: "I care for nothing; I must go." In the circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD HENDERSON
The next Amendment has already been discussed. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 22, leave out ("whether with or without") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HENDERSON
This also has been discussed. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 13, after ("being") insert ("in each case land comprised in ").—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in the definition of "building" after the first "any" to insert "fence." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to insert the word "fence" in this definition. It is rather doubtful whether the definition of 24 a building is so worded as to include "fence." Under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, a building is so defined as specifically to exclude "fences, gates, posts, masts, ornaments, and other similar structures or erections," and I suggest that the word "structures" includes a fence. As the position is doubtful, I think it should be clarified. My principal object in moving this Amendment is to secure correct interpretation. The Amendment is of considerable importance in counties such as East Sussex, Kent and Surrey, where many persons may be disposed to erect fences on their ground to obstruct the public in their recreative pursuits.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 16, after ("any") insert ("fence").—(Lord Addington.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
Before the noble Lord replies, I rather hope that "building" does not include "fence." It seems to me a very great stretching of the English language to say that "building" includes a fence. If this will bring into the need for planning permission anybody who plants a yew hedge or plants an ordinary hedge in his garden, I must say I think it is going too far.

§ LORD HENDERSON
To include the word "fence" in the definition, as is proposed, would have the effect of putting it beyond doubt that every fence of every nature, however small, was deliberately being brought within planning control. To omit the word "fence," on the other hand, would not leave all fences out of control, because a large number of them, at any rate, would clearly be within the words "structures and erections." In those circumstances, I must resist the Amendment.

§ LORD LATHAM
Now where are we?

§ LORD ADDINGTON
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD HENDERSON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 23, leave out from ("operations") to ("includes") in line 26. —(Lord Henderson.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
These two Government Amendments are consequential on some Amendments which we made to 25 Clause 11 in which we widened the definition there of what we excluded, and, therefore, these words are unnecessary here. If I am right in that, they certainly do come rather into the drafting, or at any rate into the consequential, category.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HENDERSON
The next Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment to Clause 11. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 28, leave out from ("other") to end of line 29 and insert ("operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder").—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HENDERSON
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 123, line 5, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in the definition of "engineering operations" after "excavations" to insert "for the purpose of carrying out development." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. If your Lordships will look at Clause 11, your Lordships will see that development, for which you have to get permission, and for which you may have to pay a development charge, is "the carrying out of engineering operations" amongst other things. When we come to the actual Amendment that I am moving at page 124, line 9, we see that "engineering operations" includes "the making of excavations." If I understand English, that reference to "excavations," stops there. Yet you go on and say "and the formation or laying out of means of access to highways." I do not think "excavations" can refer to the "means of access to highways."

§ What are we coming to if we just say that we have to get permission for any engineering operations, and these operations include "the making of excavations?" "The making of excavations" is pretty wide. You dig a hole in your garden and that is an excavation. Your small child goes on the seashore and digs the sand in order to make a castle, and that is an excavation. I hardly think we mean to include such things in "engineering operations," for which 26 planning permission has to be obtained, and to which the attention of the Central Land Board might have to be drawn to decide whether some form of development charge had or had not been incurred. As your Lordships see, I am trying to be helpful. It seems to me that what is probably meant is the commencement of the foundation of a building, or perhaps a road; but that is not the only kind of excavation which would be included if the words were to remain in the Bill as they are at present. For those extremely good reasons, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 124, line 9, after ("excavations") insert ("for the purpose of carrying out development.")—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD HENDERSON
The purpose of these words is to reproduce the restrictions imposed by the Ribbon Development Act, 1935, which is repealed by the Bill. The same words appear there. I appreciate the special difficulties to which the noble Lord calls attention, of the child digging in the garden or in the sand, but I should have thought that if there were any danger of such operations being in contravention of planning control, the simplest thing would be for the children to go on digging until they were served with an enforcement notice!

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
This is all great fun, but I think we ought to put in the Act what we mean. I am not wedded to these words because they have the hallowed memory of being in the Act of 1935. Perhaps we could make the words: "excavations in connexion with means of access to highways." I do not say that mine are the best words. I did not know what these excavations were meant to refer to. I think we should see that the words we put in the Statute do not cover those other cases, if our laws are not to be brought into disrepute. I ask the noble Lord to try and find more apt words, before the Report stage, to meet what we all intend.

§ LORD HENDERSON
I accept the noble Lord's suggestion.

§ LORD HARLECH
I would like to mention in that connexion the importance of water supplies. There may be a case where water is already on the site, but the pipe is too small, and you have to excavate in order to relay a pipe. 27 You do not want that work held up pending permission from some planning authority to do what obviously needs to be done to improve the existing water supplies. We must be rather careful; otherwise some tricky gentleman will come along and say: "You have not got permission from the planning authority. You have put in a two-inch pipe instead of a one-inch pipe, and you have broken the law." I hope the noble Lord will look into that matter.

§ LORD HENDERSON
I will certainly have the definition looked into in the light of the considerations raised by both noble Lords.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I am obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 114, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
May I ask a question which arose also on Clause 86, and was referred to by myself and by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor? In a Bill that deals, among other things, with Crown land one would have expected to find a definition of "Crown land" in this clause. Instead of that, I think it is given in Clause 85. In that clause, however, it appears to be rather limited. It says that the expression "Crown land," for the purpose of that and the next section, shall mean this, that and the other, which seems to imply that there are other current definitions of "Crown land" in other Acts. There is not one in the Interpretation Act of 1889. The subject must have been referred to in other Acts between then and now, and I was wondering whether the definition in Clause 85 was to be taken as the definition, or whether there are others.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Crown land is referred to only in Clauses 85 and 86 of this Bill. I think I am right in saying that the definition comes in Clause 85 (1). As it is referred to in the Bill in only those two clauses, we thought it convenient to have the definition there rather than in the general wording at the end.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
My point was that it seemed to imply that there might be other definitions of "Crown land "in 28 Other Acts, and this was a special definition for a special purpose.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not know whether there are other definitions of "Crown land" in other Acts, but this is the definition we thought it appropriate to have for these two clauses.

§ Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 115 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

§ LORD HENDERSON
This Amendment is preparatory to the next Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 128, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD HENDERSON
The next Amendment is drafting. It is the intention that all the provisions relating to compensation on compulsory acquisition of land should come into force as from the date of Royal Assent rather than at the appointed day. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 128, line 8, at end insert— ("and (c) Part V of this Act, so much of section eighty-nine of this Act as relates to land acquired before the appointed day, subsection (2) of Section one hundred and ten of this Act so far as it relates to Part I of the Ninth Schedule to this Act, and Part I of the said Ninth Schedule").—(Lord Henderson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.

§ 3.48 p.m.

§ First Schedule: