PART I.

HL Deb 30 June 1947 vol 149 cc558-619

Development included in existing use for purposes other than compensation under S. 19."

That is to say, inter alia development, for which you do not have to pay a development charge. Then your Lordships will see the Amendment at the bottom of page 51 of the Marshalled List where I am putting in a list of things for which a development charge does not have to be paid. It reads: The use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building which on the appointed day was used as a single dwellinghouse. My intention is that when we come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, either in this form or in his form—we can look at it then—to accept the course he suggested—namely, to say that this matter must be and shall remain subject to planning control but that it is not a case in which we need exact a development charge. I hope that will meet the noble Viscount's intention and that he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, I would like to say a few words in the hope of persuading the noble and learned Viscount to consider this Amendment a little more fully. I want to remind your Lordships of what takes place, and what your Lordships as well as myself must have seen very often—namely, the gradual change in the character of a district.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

With great respect to the noble Lord, if I want to withdraw my Amendment why do we have to consider it more fully?

LORD SALTOUN

Because I do not want the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment. I have a reason, and it is this. When a district changes its character a series of things happen. First of all, people take in lodgers and then they let a floor in a. house. Both those things are very uncomfortable, and much the more efficient and much the better way is to have some steps at the back and a passage through, with a separate door at the front, thereby making two flats. It would be a great discomfort for the people of the district if any effort was made to maintain a district at a higher level than that at which it could be economically maintained. It is much more comfortable for families to live in dwellings which are separated into flats than in the uncomfortable way in which lodgers live. For that reason I should be glad if the Government would consider this matter again and perhaps accept the noble Viscount's Amendment, or put something in at a later stage.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am sorry to go back upon my noble friend but I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that there is a strong and powerful case to be made out for making alterations of houses subject to planning control. The appearance of an area can be spoilt and destroyed by a reckless alteration of houses. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his concession.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "area" to insert "or the height." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an attempt to ensure that the height of tips will be controlled. I think this is particularly important where low lying land is being built up, and it should be clear that the height is included. While I am on that point, might I just get it perfectly clear from the noble and learned Viscount that an additional load of refuse deposited by a local authority in a recognized tip will not be regarded as requiring planning control and as extending the area. That would obviously make the control of tipping impossible. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 41, after ("area") insert ("or the height".)—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I start off by accepting this Amendment, and secondly, by saying that I am quite sure that every heap of refuse which you deposit will not in itself be a subject matter requiring planning control.

LORD ADDINGTON

That is adequately covered by the Bill as at present worded, but it could be taken as extending the area.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

What would be the effect of that? It would say that the height must not be exceeded, and it would mean that tipping must not be carried on. Would there not have to be a specific height for each particular tip over a certain area? Otherwise it would be very difficult for any tipping to be carried on.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not think height makes any more difference than length and breadth. I will see that the words are in the Bill. It would be ridiculous if you had to get consent for each alteration of the height.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert: (c) where permission in respect of the development of land has been granted subject to a condition limiting the occupation of a dwelling house to persons employed or engaged locally in all or any of the following pursuits, namely, agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture and forestry, the use of such dwelling house (whether or not there has been a change in the occupation thereof) as the dwelling house of a person not normally employed or engaged as aforesaid involves a material change in the use of such dwelling house. The noble Lord said: I have some reason to think that I shall be told that the Bill already covers the object I have in view. Therefore it will not be necessary to inflict on your Lordships the somewhat lengthly remarks I was proposing to make.

Under the 1932 Act it was quite a common thing for an applicant to ask for planning consent for some agricultural purpose. Under the model clauses of the 1932 Act local planning authorities frequently gave such consent subject to the condition that the land would really be used for agricultural purposes; so that if a man, having received permission to build a house for agricultural purposes, sold it to a gentleman in the City, or, if he sold the land himself, and himself occupied the house as a City gentleman, we had residuary powers of proceeding against him for contravening the scheme. I have been advised that under this Bill as drafted the local authority would lose that power. If that were so the results would be serious, because if there were no power to prevent a man evading the conditions to which he had agreed, it would be extremely difficult to prevent ribbon development occurring without, at the same time, unduly restricting the legitimate interests of agriculture. If the noble and learned Viscount can assure me that local planning authorities can continue legally to attach such a condition to the consent, and to enforce it, I shall be perfectly satisfied. A good deal of importance attaches to this matter, and some doubt has been expressed as to the intention of the Bill. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give me a full reply.

LORD HYLTON

When the noble and learned Viscount replies, I hope he will be able to tell us whether the condition made by the local planning officer on the use or proposed use of the land will run with the land, and not with the individual who makes the application. It is an important point. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will agree, that if the condition only runs with the individual, then on sale the condition lapses. That is what local planning authorities are so anxious to avoid: that they make a condition with a prospective builder for the use of land for a specific purpose and then the owner, having built his house, sells, and the condition ceases because it does not run with the land. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount when he answers Lord Gage will tell us quite specifically that the powers in the Bill will run with the land and not with the individual. Unless they do we shall be in no better position than we are at the present time.

LORD HENDERSON

I think I can give a satisfactory assurance to both noble Lords. The Amendment deals only with the case of an agricultural dwelling erected after the appointed day, in accordance with planning permission, in cases where the planning permission is given subject to conditions governing its occupation. These conditions may properly be imposed by virtue of Clause 17 (3), under which a planning permission may specify the purposes for which a building may be used, and any breach of the conditions is a contravention of planning control, and enforcement action may be taken under Clause 22. I think the noble Lord will realize that I have been talking of the conditions affecting buildings. Permission runs with the land as also do the conditions.

LORD HYLTON

It is not affected by a sale?

LORD HENDERSON

I think I made it perfectly clear that the conditions attach to the cottage, and a breach of the conditions constitutes a contravention of the permission, involving enforcement action, to which I have referred.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is under Clause 17 (4).

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am very satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. I am sure it will be read with interest by local authorities generally and that on that assurance they will continue to give consents as they have done in the past. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment made to Clause 30 (1) in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 43, leave out ("Subject") and insert: ("Without prejudice").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.49. p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (4), to insert: (5) The use of land as a site for movable dwellings, where such use is for more than 14 consecutive days or more than 21 days in any 12 consecutive months, shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that land. The noble Lord said: This raises rather a wide question regarding sites for camps and movable dwellings. It is one which gave very considerable difficulty to local authorities over a very long period. It was the subject of a special paper moved at the annual conference of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association held at Bournemouth last month. They urged very strongly that the use of sites for movable dwellings should be brought forthwith under planning control, and that in the schemes that planning authorities are going to make there should be shown models suitable for the permitting of camping sites.

Again, there has been a special inquiry by the clerks of a very large area of joint planning associations in South Lancashire and North Cheshire. I think that covered no fewer than 104 local authorities. It further points to the difficulty of the matter, and suggests that in future years camping, and therefore the regulation of camping sites or movable dwellings, will become an increasing problem. It is suggested, first of all, that it will be necessary to prohibit completely camping on sites of special interest and beauty, which I think is a very necessary feature; and then that all the land that is available should have proper facilities. Therefore, the planning sub-committee of the County Councils' Association confirmed that the selection of sites for camping is pre-eminently a subject for determination by the planning authority, and that the present Bill does provide immediate opportunity for securing the greater control that is desired. It is a matter that I think is still very widely under discussion with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. More conferences are going to be held, regarding caravan clubs and other organized bodies. to deal with camping. Therefore, again, I would submit that this is a planning matter.

It is a matter that, of course, did come up under the Public Health Act of 1936, and it is largely because those regulations drawn up at that time have not been adequate that a great deal of further attention has been drawn to the matter, and I think it is a question of consideration whether anything possible could be done with the extension of powers under that Act. I happen to have been concerned with the Committee who drew up that Act, and I would point out that that Act was entirely a consolidation, so that we were unable at that time to introduce such regulations regarding both camping sites and removable dwellings as we felt were necessary and advisable in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Amendments to measures like the Public Health Act would probably take a very long time in coming, even if adequate and suitable Amendments could be drafted. We feel—and certainly I have tried to show that a very wide body of local authorities feel—that we should take the opportunity in this Planning Bill for making both camping sites and removable dwellings as such under planning control. To plan the country properly the planning authority must be able to say where the camps are to be, and in what places removable dwellings are allowed, and in what places they are not allowed. I do not think there is any risk that a planning authority would not give adequate facilities for camping and for putting up removable dwellings where they should be. It is a matter which should be subject to planning control. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 48, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I look rather with apprehension at my noble friend's Amendment. If one comes to work it out, it means that one cannot put up a tent on one's land for children staying in the house to play in without getting planning permission, and having some material change in the situation, at any rate, if one does it for more than fourteen days. At my home there are certainly two of our fields which are continuously used throughout the summer months. I saw some Girl Guide campers on one yesterday. The fields will be practically continuously used for camping purposes—we do not make any charge, incidentally—but if we are really going to have to get permission from the planning authority and to be liable for a material change, for a development charge, on lending a bit of land for Scouts or Cadets, or Girl Guides, or whatever else it may be, I think that is carrying the planning too far. If there are cases where a field is kept permanently for a whole succession of caravans that are there all the year round, and are let out like a kind of holiday camp, I believe the local authority can well deal with them under its ordinary public health powers without these wide powers, which I am sure would prevent you putting up a tent on your own land, if you kept it up for more than fourteen days, for your children to play with. Therefore I do hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, and will leave it to the ordinary public health provisions to deal with cases where there are camps with caravans and things continuously on them. These are the camp sites out of which a profit is made, and which might well have to be planned and to have proper drainage put in. This Amendment is far too wide.

LORD STRABOLGI

There is also the case, not to be overlooked, of the travelling showmen who have to live in caravans so as to be near their fair ground and its valuable equipment. They may be much hampered by this proposed Amendment. And there is the case of the caravanners, as well. I tremble to think what will be the reaction of the people who have such holidays as that if such a clause is added to the Bill. I hope it will be resisted.

LORD HAMPTON

I do hope that the Government will look with great care upon this Amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that there is, and always has been, a very strong case for a measure of control, and fairly strict control, where you have large areas of land, or comparatively large areas of land, near centres of population let out very often at a very high charge for caravans and such like, with very little in the way of drainage, washing facilities, and so forth, and which do. or can, cause a great deal of nuisance and upset the amenities of the district. At the same time, as Lord Llewellin pointed out, there are these Scout and Guide Camps, in which I am particularly interested, and now this Bill has become public property there is some concern among many people, and especially farmers, who in the past have been used to allowing these young people to come and camp on their land, at no charge, although very often there is a fair exchange in the way of work during the harvest time, which is all to be encouraged. They have even in some cases not only allowed them to pitch a tent, but they have put up perhaps a small hut in which they can keep their gear, so as to be able to come there at week-ends without having to carry it. I have an Amendment down on Clause 83, but this comes rather more into Lord Addington's Amendment. I do hope that more care will be taken to divide up these two categories of people, those where strict control is badly wanted and those where I think there should be the minimum of control, if any control at all.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Surely, this problem is purely a sanitary problem. We who live in the country know perfectly well that in certain cases a good crop of caravans means a good preparation for a very good wheat crop, if that is the crop you want. Surely, this is a sanitary problem, not a planning problem.

LORD HENDERSON

I am bound to resist the Amendment, and I think that 90 per cent, of the case that I might have had to make has been made for me by the noble Lords who have followed the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I will not go over the ground again; I will just deal with the matter in a brief sentence on its planning side. If a new site is used for regular intensive camping the Minister is advised that this will involve a material change of use, and will therefore constitute developments under the Bill as drawn, without any express provision. It follows that the permission of the local planning authority would be required, and that if a new site is used in this way without permission the authority can serve an enforcement notice under Clause 32 requiring the use to stop. The continued use can be restricted or prohibited under Clause 24, which enables the local planning authority to make an order stopping the use, or imposing conditions on its continuance. It is felt that these provisions give as much control over camping as is necessary. I hope that, in the light of the facts to which I have referred and of the comments made by noble Lords who have previously spoken, the noble Lord. Lord Addington, will not press his Amendment but will feel able to withdraw it.

LORD ADDINGTON

I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer at this stage, but I was much interested in what the noble Lord said about the possibility of planning control of new sites. It has struck me that perhaps I might be able to look up the reference again. It is a matter on which, perhaps, authorities concerned might look for a little more guidance. I will not say more now as I know your Lordships wish to adjourn, but perhaps I may be able to refer to this at some later stage in a modified form. At the moment I will not press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

LORD ADDINGTON moved at the end of paragraph (c), subsection (5) to insert "if that purpose had been permitted by the local planning auhority." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of Clause 11 provides that development will not be required "in the case of land which on the appointed day is unoccupied, in respect of the use of the land for the purpose for which it was last used." There can be no objection to that, if the last use was one which had the approval of the planning authority; but it is quite possible, particularly where land has been out of regular use for some time, that there might be occasions when it was not so approved, and even to restore it to its former use would conflict with good planning. The Amendment is designed to prevent the resumption of the use of land under this paragraph for purposes for which the local authorty have not given approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

The Amendment gives quite an appropriate test where planning control was in operation, but, as the noble Lord will realize, the clause recognizes past use back to 1937, and over much of the country there was no planning control until 1943. In such cases past use was one which the owner was entitled to make of his land and it is not thought right to deprive him of it now without compensation. The point of principle is now covered, however, by the Government Amendment which is next on the List, and in these circumstances the noble Lord might not wish to press his Amendment.

LORD ADDINGTON

As this point seems to be covered, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HENDERSON moved in subparagraph (i) of the proviso, after "used" to insert "and in determining for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this subsection the purposes for which land was last used." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which corrects a drafting flaw in Clause 11 and is designed to avoid giving an owner a statutory right to resume without permission a past use that was started in contravention of planning control.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 20, after ("used") insert the said words.—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Development orders.

12.—(1) The Minister shall by order provide for the grant of permission for the development of land under this Part of this Act, and such permission may be granted—

1. (a) in the case of any development specified in any such order, or in the case of development of any class so specified, by that order itself;

(5) Every development order shall be laid before Parliament immediately after it is made, and if either House within the period of forty days after the order is so laid before it resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order:

Provided that, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, where any such order makes provision for excluding or modifying any enactment contained in a public general Act (other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act) the order shall be of no effect until that provision is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

LORD ADDINGTON moved at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to insert: (b) in any county or part of a county in respect of which a development plan has for the time being not been made and approved under the foregoing provisions of this Act by the authority who if this Act had not been passed would have been the Interim Development Authority.

The noble Lord said: The next two Amendments hang together and are the first I have which deal with administration. They are intended to deal with the position which would arise immediately after the passing of this Bill. It is sometimes difficult to follow which parts of the Bill come into force at which time, but I understand that in regard to these interim development controls the principal authority—that is to say, each individual district council—will be in complete control of applications to develop, certainly between now and the appointed day, and even perhaps a little later, until arrangements for delegation and the new administration have been actually made. The point about which I was a little anxious was this. If the appointed day is likely to be some months ahead, the local authority wanting to develop its own area in its own way may do some development which would conflict with the wider aspects of planning now being taken out of their hands and into those of a wider authority. The last words in my second Amendment are put in to provide some overriding control and consultation immediately the Bill is passed, or as soon as can be arranged, by local authorities. The Amendment is put down partly to elicit information and to see whether the Government think that this is a point which should be provided for in any way in this clause. If so we may consult about the verdict a little later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am unable to accept this Amendment, but I think the explanation I shall give will be acceptable to the noble Lord. The control of development in the pre-plan period must be related to the proposals being formulated by the county council and cannot reasonably be left to another authority. Consultation is not enough unless the further step is taken of binding the district council to take instructions from the county council, which may prove to be a very different thing from merely abiding by general direction. It is, however, the intention that the day-to-day control of private development should be, as far as is possible and desirable, in the hands of the district councils, and it is proposed to effect this by regulations to be made under Clause 32, which provides for the delegation of functions to the councils of county districts. The degree of devolution may further vary in different areas and in different stages of the planning process, and it will be possible to provide for this in the regulations, whereas the Amendment allows of no such provision. Furthermore, the related Amendment would place upon the district council an obligation to consult the local planning authority in the case of every application for permission to develop, and there may be many cases where it would be unnecessary. It is considered that the matter could be more suitably dealt with in regulations under Clause 32, under which there will be full consultation with the Local Authority Associations.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am much obliged for the noble Lord's reply, but I would point out that I included general directions, and therefore did not particularly provide for individual consultation. But there should be a general scheme under which certain acts could be reserved and certain matters left to day-to-day control. I understand, however, that these regulations are likely to be made at some early date; I am not certain how long it would be before a regulation could be drawn up, but if we may take it that the regulations will be drawn up at an early stage, that covers the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved in the proviso to subsection (5) to leave out "(other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act)." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see from the subsection that a development order may be made provided that—and I will now read the words of the proviso without prejudice to the foregoing provision, where any such order makes provision for excluding or modifying any enactment contained in a public general Act"— then I seek to leave out the words (other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act)''— Then it continues— the order shall be of no effect until that provision is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. This practice of modifying Acts of Parliament by ministerial order is, in my view, a wrong one. What the clause does, except for the exceptions, is to say that any modification of an Act of Parliament which has been solemnly passed by both Houses shall be approved by the resolution of each House of Parliament. But then, for some reason best known to the Government, a certain number of Statutes are excluded from that extremely good principle.

Those that are excluded are set out in the Second Schedule. They are, first, The Public Health (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888. That Act provides that buildings must not project beyond the line of the adjoining buildings of any urban district. I should have thought that that was quite a sound provision. The second excepted enactment is Sections 30 to 34 of the Public Health Act, which contained various provisions including one as to declaring a street to be a new street, the prescription of the width of the street for main thoroughfares, and matters of that sort. The next excepted enactment is Section 5 of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, which provides for the prescription of building lines, which is also something for which there is very properly power to prescribe. When we come to Section 107 of the Public Health Act, 1936, that contains restrictions on the establishment of offensive trades in urban areas. What Parliament will be doing, if it passes this Second Schedule and these words, will be giving a Minister power, without any reference to Parliament, to get rid of some very beneficial provisions in earlier Acts of Parliament. For myself, I am against the modifying of Acts by ministerial order without any reference to either House of Parliament. I should like, at the least, some very convincing explanation of this proposal from some noble Lord on the Government Front Bench.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to the second ("the") in line 36.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD HENDERSON

I hope to be able to give the noble Lord, if not a very convincing explanation, at least a convincing explanation. As the Bill stands, a development order which excludes the enactments set out in the Second Schedule is subject to negative Resolution only. The schedule specifies four enactments in Public General Acts, all of which deal with matters fully covered by planning control under the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, these are principally building lines, and what are termed "offensive trades," which I believe have some connexion with smells, and that sort of thing—

LORD LLEWELLIN

Fried fish and chip shops.

LORD HENDERSON

—all of which it is the practice to suspend in planning schemes under existing law. It also provides for excluding without affirmative Resolution any enactment which could have taken the form of a by-law, and so on, and any enactment which has been suspended before: that is, by an affirmative Resolution. Both the 1932 Act and the 1944 Act provide for suspending these enactments without affirmative Resolution, so that the Bill merely follows existing law. But a development order which excludes any other enactment in a Public General Act requires an affirmative Resolution. I hope the noble Lord regards that as a convincing explanation.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The only substantial part of it, I must say, with great respect to the noble Lord, is that he has sheltered behind something that was done in previous Acts. No doubt, by implication, I was part author of one or two of those previous Acts, but I must say I never knew that this kind of provision was in them. Thinking so highly of the noble Lord who has answered for the Government, I should have thought that he could make a new start and get rid of this obnoxious principle. But as he has not, and as he is standing on good precedent, from which the present Government too often depart, I think it would be only a pleasant recognition of his standing on ancient precedent that I should withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

Applications to local planning authorities for permission.

(3) Provision may be made by a development order for prescribing the classes of persons by whom, and the procedure by which, applications may be made to the local planning authority for permission to develop land, and for regulating the manner in which such applications are to be dealt with by that authority; and in particular provision may be made by any such order—

• (a) for dispensing with separate applications for permission in the case of development of which plans and specifications are submitted under building byelaws, and in other similar cases;
• (b) for enabling the Minister (or, in the case of development affecting trunk roads, the Minister of Transport) to give directions restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority, during such period as may be specified in the directions, in respect of any such development, or in respect of development of any such class, as may be so specified;
• (c) for authorising the local planning authority, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the order, or by directions given by the Minister thereunder, to grant permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan;
• (f) for requiring the local planning authority to furnish to the Minister, and to such other persons as may be prescribed by or under the order, such information as may be so prescribed with respect to applications for permission made to them, including information as to the manner in which any such application has been dealt with.

(4) Without prejudice to any provisions included in the development order by virtue of the last foregoing subsection for restricting the grant of permission by local planning authorities, an application to the local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building of any class prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection by the Board of Trade shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, and a copy of the certificate is furnished to the local planning authority together with the application.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out from "for," where that word first occurs, to the end of paragraph (a) and insert: regulating the manner in which applications for permission to develop land are to be dealt with by local planning authorities, and in particular. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is preparatory to the new clause I am moving later on, dealing with Applications for planning permission, determination of development charges, etc., which I am seeking to have inserted at page 111, after Clause 99. The object is to try to simplify the position of the man who is asking for planning permission, by-law permission and determination of development charge, to have his applications combined into a single document and thus avoid a multiplicity of applications. I think that is a case which your Lordships have very much at heart, and this is a mere preliminary to that. When we come to that proposal, which arises at page 111 of the Bill, no doubt the matter will be debated. This is, as I say, merely preliminary to that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I quite appreciate the purport of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, which is, so to speak, consequential on a much later Amendment, but in the process of moving this short Amendment he slaughters my little innocent on the next page. I should therefore like an assurance from him on one point, because the Amendment which stands in my name has a certain importance. The intention of that Amendment is to ensure that nobody who has no proper right to do so can approach a planning authority and get permission to develop a particular area of land. At the time he asks for that permission he may have no proper rights in that land and may be acting without the knowledge of the proper owner of the land. If this were to happen the real owner might be confronted subsequently by a fait accompli when somebody else, under Clause 42, had been given permission to develop land in a particular way. The effect of this Amendment is to try and make one more certainty that there shall be no underhand business in this. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can assure me that that particular eventuality will be covered by his Amendment which comes later on, with which I am not fully conversant.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it will be. May I say that in 99 cases out of 100 the noble Earl's Amendment would be quite satisfactory but there would be the rare case in which his Amendment would not be satisfactory? There may be cases in which the Central Land Board want to acquire land in order to dispose of it to a developer who desires to develop it in accordance with the plan but who cannot persuade the owner to sell it. In those cases it is right that the Central Land Board should be able to acquire the land, although neither the man who desires to develop it nor the Board will at that particular moment have any interest in the land. The second reason why it is unsatisfactory is this. There will be cases in which the Central Land Board desire to purchase land and having applied for and obtained planning permission, the Central Land Board could then sell it free of development charge. They desire to do this, using that as a kind of prototype, in order that they can test the market from time to time, to see how the market is going. They think it is essential that they should have that power. Except in those rather bizarre and exceptional cases, the desire which the noble Lord has at heart will, I think, be properly safeguarded, and the last thing we wish to do is to give any encouragement to the land speculator, for whom we have no affection at all. Therefore, I think the noble Earl can rest fairly happily about this position.

VISCOUNT GAGE

In regard to the first case the noble and learned Viscount mentioned, where the Central Land Board are to buy in order to redispose to some other person, he will no doubt recollect that under Clause 67 the local planning authority have to give advice to the Central Land Board as to whether the applicant is able and willing to carry out a proposal for development. I cannot quite see how they can give that advice until they are in a position to find out for themselves. I hope that in this case the point might be looked into in any further Amendment which the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, moves.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The second class of case to which the noble and learned Viscount referred deals with the Central Land Board. The Board must themselves be in possession of land before they set out to test the market in regard to it. That surely visualizes a case where they have already purchased the land and to test the market want to sell it again—which is surely not applicable to the Amendment which my noble friend moved. I should have thought, whether these are the exact words or not, that even if the man has no interest in the land, it would be necessary to give some kind of notice to the owner of the land that application had been made, so that he would have an opportunity of knowing and that things would not be done behind his back, which is the last thing any of us want to see. After all, in the clause which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, moved, where the land is designated and the owner himself is ready to develop, he is to be given the opportunity of doing it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have great sympathy with that and I will gladly look into the point. I do not want any of these things to be done behind the man's back. They should all be done in the full light of day. But manifestly the inducement to a landowner to sell his land has largely gone, and that being so we must have this power in case the landowner, on the hypothesis that he has had his share of the £300,000,000, should simply demand an exorbitant price for his land. We must therefore reserve the right of the Central Land Board to purchase, in order that they may get over the problem of the recalcitrant landowner. I will gladly see if there is anything I can do to ensure that this particular light is not hidden under a bushel, and so that the landowner knows what is to be done.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am inclined to think that the Central Land Board, with all their vast compulsory powers, may be themselves an interested party in any piece of land that they may wish to acquire. What I am afraid of is that the Board, without the knowledge of the owner, might get hold of a piece of land and obtain permission to develop it, and consequently acquire it and do the thing the wrong way round. They obtain permission to develop and then the unfortunate owner is put in the position of having to dispose of it to be developed by somebody else, without his knowing anything about it. That is all I wanted to avoid by my Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at it between now and Report I will make no further objection to his Amendment, and I will not move mine.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGEmoved, in subsection (3) (a), at the end to insert: Provided that the Minister shall not require a local planning authority to undertake any duties for or on behalf of the Central Land Board in connection with any determination as to the liability for or the amount of, a development charge under Part VII Of this Act in respect of any development. The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the Minister shall not require a local planning authority to undertake the obligation of the Central Land Board for asessment of the development charge, or to measure up the licences of buildings that will have to be measured up in assessing development charges, or to keep registers for the Central Land Board. I very much hope it is the intention of the Government to keep the administration of the Central Land Board entirely separate from that of the local authorities. If that is so, I think there is some advantage in putting words to that effect into the Bill, because I think the public might be misled, by the wording of this subsection, into thinking that the local planning authorities can help them with the Central Land Board in regard to the assessment of their development charges. I should regard that prospect with a good deal of alarm, and I hope the Government will be able to make it quite clear that the local planning authority have no responsibility in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Minister has not the slightest intention of making the local authorities undertake any duties of the Central Land Board. It would be most unfortunate if they did, but the difficulty is to put it into words. The noble Viscount has selected words saying that the planning authority shall not be asked to undertake any duties for or on behalf of the Central Land Board. I have some difficulty in accepting that for this reason. Whilst I agree with him entirely that they should not be asked to undertake the assessment of the development charge, yet they should be asked to furnish to the Central Land Board all the relevant information which they have. That might affect the assessment which the Central Land Board would make.

Amongst other things, for instance, it might be necessary for the local planning authorities to notify the Board of grants or refusals for development permission. The Board, of course, cannot make development charges until planning permission has been granted and a conditional planning permission may affect the amount of a development charge. Those might be said to be duties "in connexion with." I can, however, give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he asks: that it is not the intention that the local authority shall have any part in the fixation of the development charge, although it is the intention that they should give all factual information in their possession to the Central Land Board, in order that the Central Land Board may, in the light of that information, be able to fix the development charge. The only reason I am not accepting the Amendment is because the wording is so wide that it might be read to mean that the local authority may not give factual information to the Central Land Board. I hope, with that assurance, that the noble Viscount will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I should be perfectly satisfied and grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance, if he meant that the local planning authorities were only to be asked to furnish information which is in their possession already. I am hoping that they will not have to go out and secure information. It may create expense to themselves.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree.

VISCOUNT GAGE

With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.0 p.m.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (b) after "Minister of Transport," to insert "after consultation with the local planning authority." The noble Lord said: This affects the Minister of Transport. In order that local authorities should be able to exercise their duties adequately, I suggest that they should be consulted before the Minister of Transport gives his directions, otherwise the whole development plan of an authority might be held up. They should be treated as responsible persons whose views should be taken into account, and not merely as the recipients from the Minister of directions which might affect their work as planning authorities. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is very important, of course, that a local planning authority should not be regarded merely as a kind of body which has to receive orders, to receive the ukase of the Minister and see that it is carried out. That is not our intention at all. On the other hand, so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned the powers of this subsection are intended to give the Minister a degree of control over ribbon development and access to trunk roads broadly corresponding to what he at present possesses and exercises under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts, which, as noble Lords know, are to be repealed in this Bill. He will be able to require certain classes of application to be referred to him (in practice, it will be to the divisional road engineer) and, when they are so referred, to direct that certain of them are subject to conditions. Prior consultation as regards. general directions, would not, I think, be practicable, and as regards individual directions would not be appropriate. I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance which I think will satisfy him, and to obtain which he has probably brought forward this Amendment. There will be consultation with the local authorities before a new general order including provisions on this point is made. I can further give him this undertaking. Where any ministerial action affecting a particular local planning authority is contemplated—for instance if a direction were under consideration restricting the grant of permission in an area likely to be developed as a new town—it will be the general practice to consult the authorities affected beforehand, Wherever that may be possible. On that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

There is a point about this which I think gives rather more importance to the Amendment than may appear on the surface. There is no doubt at all, I think, that communications constitute the skeleton upon which development and planning must be built up. Unless there is an absolute assurance and a mandatory assurance that there is to be the closest connexion between the Ministry of Transport and the planning authority, you will be separating the skeleton from the flesh, which is not likely to produce satisfactory life in any plan.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I find this a little difficult to understand. One of our difficulties has been due to inconsistencies between orders made, in many cases with regard to ribbon restriction on trunk roads, and decisions made by county councils on other very similar roads. It has always seemed to me that there have been remarkable inconsistencies in that connexion and it was a great relief to me to learn that the Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts are to go. We had an inconsistency with regard to planning regulations. It was very confusing. As I understand it, the Trunk Roads Act gives the Minister power to define the lines of trunk roads. There can be an inquiry, and that will still operate. That being so, one would think that under a planning Bill the planning authority would know, by the decision already made by the Minister of Transport, where the trunk roads were to go, and would exercise their ordinary discretion in making the plan in relation to a new road, as they do in relation to roads that exist. I should think that existing regulations would have regard to the general use of roads, whereas the ordinary day-to-day work of decisions or permission to develop should be left entirely to the local planning authority, who have the knowledge.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think you are right: that is just about what it is. There are some things not appropriate to be dealt with by local authorities and others which should be largely covered by local authorities. I do not think we want the words in the Bill and I consider the assurances given to the noble Lord will be sufficient.

LORD ADDINGTON

This is one of the matters which will be dealt with when local planning authorities and highway authorities are taken into full con-consultation and have their full share of all these planning applications. Therefore the point of view regarding ribbon development and access to roads will be considered. In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount, I will not press for the insertion of these particular words. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SAVILE moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "thereunder" to insert "including the payment of compensation in respect of any depreciation in land thereby occasioned." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is a very reasonable one. We know that one of the advantages of planning under this Bill is that it is possible to find out all about the type of development in any particular area and to maintain it. Take the case where the development plan has provided that a certain district should be residential, and a person comes along, acquires a piece of land, pays a development charge, and spends a good deal of money building a house on it. Under paragraph (c) power is given to the local authority through a development order to go and put down anything like a horrible sewage works or gas works right on the doorstep of this man's house, which may be a convalescent home. Not only is it extremely objectionable for him, but the considerable sum of money which he has invested on the inducement of the development plan is lost and the value of his property has gone down. The Government have been very sympathetic to certain aspects of compensation in other places, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will feel inclined to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 1, after ("thereunder") insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry to be difficult about this Amendment, but I do not feel I ought to assent to it. The landowner has no such right to-day. I am leaving out altogether the question of a right in regard to nuisance: that will survive after this Bill is passed. If someone starts an offensive works near a man's house, that man can to-day bring and will to-morrow be able to bring an action. Apart from that, however, if someone obstructs his view, he has no right to-day, and equally he should have no right after this Bill is passed, to take action. A man might have a beautiful vista from his house and by bad luck someone may come along to shut out his view. That has never allowed the right of action, and a man cannot be allowed compensation for it. We cannot give him that for the first time in this Bill. The Minister has authorized me to say that permission to depart from the development plan is obviously a permission which should be used very sparingly, because it is apt to upset things, and people who have entered into an arrangement, naturally enough, on the basis of the plan may be aggrieved if the plan is departed from.

Therefore, I can tell your Lordships that the Minister's proposal is that in such cases we ought to provide either for a local inquiry or for formal amendment of the plan under Clause 9 before a decision is taken; and then, of course, the man has the right to raise his objection. But it is conceivable that a local authority may refuse permission to develop in circumstances that might give rise to compensation under Clause 19 or the service of a purchase order under Clause 18. In such cases, the authorization to depart from the plan would not take away either the right to compensation or the right to have the land purchased at existing value.

That is the position and I am bound to point out that one of the principal objects of the Bill is to enable positive plans for development to take place without any local authority being hampered or obstructed by claims for compensation. It is for this reason that we and the last Government propose to take development values out of private ownership and to compensate for them. Otherwise, as we all know, the local authorities are handicapped by reason of this matter of compensation. We must make our development plans flexible, and we must make them adaptable; and no human being can possibly see how things are going to develop. With the best will in the world, although you prepare a plan showing what you well believe to be the way the thing will develop, circumstances may completely falsify your beliefs and you may have to alter the plan. It would be lamentable if the local authority were prevented from such alteration by reason of the fact that if they did so they would have to pay large sums in compensation. We all want to get away from that but, as I have said, I feel there is the other side to be looked at, and the Minister authorizes me to say that the machinery for the alteration of a plan should be very sparingly used; and where it is used it should, in the normal event, be subject to some sort of formal proceedings such as I have indicated, so that all objections may be heard and dealt with. I hope the noble Lord will not now think it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY

I have listened with great interest to the remarks which have flowed from the noble Lord, Lord Savile, and from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. There seems to me, as in all planning, naturally a certain conflict of interest, but I have noticed creeping into these debates from the Government Benches what I call the ominous words "flexibility" and "fluidity" It really comes down to the fact that the Minister can alter his plan as often as he likes in his detailed planning but the individual always has to conform. I should have thought that the object of planning—in fact I have always been led to understand it—is that it presupposes on the part of the planning authority a certain power of foreseeing the future, because the merits of planning must be that the planning authority, the Government or the local authority, say: "This is what shall be done" and then individuals can conform to it and make their own private plans.

Of course, there must be some flexibility but if we keep on talking about flexibility it really means that we can take assurances from the Government instead of writing it into the Bill; it means that individuals cannot plan. With respect, I disagree with the noble and learned Viscount. He says that in the past the local authorities and the planning authorities have had to compensate individuals in order to make a development plan, but now that requirement is wiped out. We are now told that we are to have a new era, and comprehensive planning. If that is so, surely it must be fair that the individual, if he acts on that comprehensive plan, should have a reasonable assurance that the plan will be carried out. Let me go back, if I may, to subsection (2) of Clause 6—I hope I shall be in order in doing so—where it lays down that the planning authority can alter their plans within the quinquennial period, if required to do so by direction of the Minister. That really means that the local authority can make a pro forma plan—I do not say they will, but they can—and alter it at will; they have no sanction applied against them if they alter it, and the individual suffers as a result.

I think we ought to make this Bill in such a form that the onus is on the planning authority to make a good plan straight away, and not to rely on the flexibility and the fluidity about which we are always hearing. If the plan is soundly constructed, if it is the fruit of research and is made by wise people, then the alterations which have to be made will be small, and the compensation which would be payable under this Amendment moved by my noble friend would also be small. It is only if the planning authority is unwise and has to alter its plan that it becomes fluid and flexible—which, if I may say so, is a Ministerial way of saying: "We have changed our minds, and we have not taken into account all the factors"—and then I think some sort of sanction ought to be applied. In our view, on this side of the Committee, there must be some sort of accord between the planners and the plan. The planners cannot have it all their own way, and if they make mistakes they must pay for them, in the same way as individuals do. I hope the Government will not seek refuge in those two magic words—which, if I may say so, with "co-operation," form a sort of trilogy of theirs—and will give to the private citizen a certain status in this planning, which they can give by allowing reasonable compensation if the plan is altered.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in replying said that there was no right at the present day; he said that there was no right to any compensation if somebody destroyed your view, or anything of that sort. But what we have to realize now is that we are embarking on something rather new; that is to say, the State, through the Central Land Board, is going to take from the developer, whether he be a large-scale developer or a man building his own house, a development charge. That development charge will be assessed by the Central Land Board. The development, whether it be the building of the man's own house or of an estate, will be carried out with the remaining development which is to be carried out around this plot in mind. He has the plan before him and, seeing that plan, he says: "Well, it may be that the Central Land Board have put the charge rather high, but, on the basis that it is going to be quite marketable land for houses of a certain type, I am prepared to pay that charge." He pays the development charge, whether he is the private individual or whether he is the estate developer, and builds his house or his houses. In the midst of that, although he has paid his development charge on the basis of the plan, permission is given to alter the plan and to erect—I will not call it a power station, or anything like that, but some obvious building, or to commence some development which obviously upsets the amenities of the place where the man has built his house, or where the developer already intends to build his houses.

That is the assumption that we are embarking upon here. Ought he not to be given something back? Ought he not, at any rate, to be refunded his development charge if he is a developer and has built three houses where he was going to build ten, and then has no sale for the other seven houses? In this case the money has been paid to the Central Land Board, who are getting more and more like the Chancellor of the Exchequer in disguise, and the Minister, who is in the same Government, gives this permission to alter it. Is the man to have no redress and still have to pay his full de- velopment charge? If it is right that this Bill should be flexible, it is equally right that it should be fair, and that is not fair. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to look at this matter again.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I want to make only one point which arises more acutely on this Amendment than almost anywhere else in the Bill. Planning, as now envisaged, is good estate management: nothing more, nothing less. If an owner of an estate does something in an area where his tenants, or those to whom he has sold the land, were expecting that they would be left in quiet enjoyment, he must expect trouble, probably financial trouble. He may even be taken to law over his having let down—to put it in that way—those with whom he has had financial transactions over land in the neighbourhood. The noble and learned Viscount, in his reply to this argument, said that you cannot expect the Central Land Board to suffer financial loss if, owing to the flexibility of their plans, they have to alter them. But that is just what the ordinary landowner must expect if he changes his plans, and so causes those to whom he has either leased or sold land to suffer. That is just what we expect His Majesty's Government to accept. I do not expect His Majesty's Government to pay much attention to the minority reports of various important Commissions which have been set up, but there was a very important Minority Report of the Uthwatt Committee, signed by a very eminent man, in which he talked a great deal about "worsenment." He talked a great deal of sense about worsenment and he envisaged just this particular point. I hope that His Majesty's Government will, at the very least, give further consideration to this, because it is a very important point of justice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am perfectly prepared, if your Lordships ask me to, to look at the matter. I will certainly look at it, but on the other hand I am not prepared to hold out any hope that I shall be able to do anything, because I do not think I shall. I must never again say that a plan must be flexible, but I do hope the noble Lord will realize that however much care you take, unless you are gifted with the vision of Old Moore you cannot possibly see how things will develop in half a dozen years' time. There must be an element—I dare not call it of flexibility—of movement of the ideal which you thought of six years ago. That is obvious; and it is also obvious that you must not treat this thing as completely liquid. That is why I said that the Minister does feel that these exceptions, these departures from the plan, ought to be few, ought to be very carefully looked at, and ought normally to be subject to formal Procedure, so that all objections may be heard. But I will gladly look into it between now and the Report stage, so long as it is plainly understood that I am not in any way committed to making any alteration but merely to consulting the Minister to see what his view is.

LORD SAVILE

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance that he will look into the matter. I quite appreciate that power would be sparingly used in these cases. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert: Provided that it shall not be necessary to furnish plans and drawings other than a site plan in any case where the proposed development is sufficiently described by the particulars delivered with the site plan. The noble Lord said: This is one of a series of Amendments I have put down with regard to the making of a plan. The wording of this is taken from the General Interim Development Order, and is therefore not particularly new. But in view of the contents of the Bill, and in order not to hinder legitimate development in housing. it is important that a provision of this kind should be put in, so as to avoid a lot of undue expense by someone who wants to develop and to lay his proposition before the authorities.

In the case of large buildings, the preparation of detailed plans might run into £2,000 or £3,000. That is an expense which the owner should not be called upon to find, when the planning permission may not be given, or when, even after the permission has been given, he may find himself called upon to continue to contribute to an extent which will be unprofitable. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

By his Amendment the noble Lord is seeking to ensure that an applicant should not be put to the expense of having detailed plans and drawings prepared in cases where those are unnecessary. That is already the normal practice under the present system and it has been so for many years past. It is made possible by a proviso to Article 10 of the General Interim Development Order made under the 1932 Act which reads as follows: Provided that it shall not be necessary to furnish plans and drawings, other than a site plan, in any case where the proposed development is sufficiently described by the particulars together with the site plan, or where the application is expressed to be an application for general permission conditional on the subsequent approval by the authority, or by the Minister on appeal, of the particulars of the proposed development. We intend that a provision to secure the same result in regulations be made under the present Bill, and I can give the noble Lord an assurance to that effect. But the precise details need rather careful working out. I propose to produce the substance of what the noble Lord wants to follow very closely the Order made under the 1932 Act. We ought to have a similar Order made under the 1947 Act, and I want to lock very carefully at the words of the Order.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am very grateful for the noble and learned Viscount's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) Before giving permission to develop land by the erection thereon of any industrial building covering over 3,000 square feet of ground, or if an extension above the same limits to any existing industrial building, the local planning authority shall consult the Board of Trade. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to remove the absolute power of decision from the Board of Trade in the case of industrial buildings and extensions. It does, however, leave an obligation on the local authority to consult them. In addition it imposes a lower limit both for new buildings and extensions below which it will not be necessary to consult the Board of Trade. I see that there are a number of other Amendments on the Order Paper on the same subject, but possibly I should move mine now.

This Amendment results from the fact that at the present time the Board of Trade are in a position to exercise such a veto, and are doing so. That, of course, is done through the control of building licences, and in many cases it is done without proper consultation with the planning authorities. It has often been argued, and as a member of a local authority I myself think, that there is far too much power in the hands of the different Government Departments to proceed with their own plans without consultation or agreement with planning authorities. That, of course, is a little different from the case here, because in many instances it is a question not of the Board of Trade building their own factories, but of the plans of people in industry who want to build factories themselves. At the present time the Board of Trade are building a large number of factories, and in this they have the powers which other Government Departments have of building in their own way, without planning permission, on their own land. So that at the present time on the question of control as between the Board of Trade and other Government Departments and the local planning authorities, it is very clear that the local authority has practically no say in the matter.

That being so, I think one should consider what are the results of this procedure which has been operating, effectively since the end of the war. I have a good deal of experience of the way in which it works, and my firm impression, from what I have seen of it, is that it is not at all satisfactory. Again I would refer to the work which has been done under the Distribution of Industry Act. I quote that because it is the operative part of the Board of Trade policy, but of course it will apply to the whole country when conditions are appropriate. There is a very right policy—to which I subscribe as much as anyone—of trying to bring industry into the development areas. That is a subject which is familiar to your Lordships, and I do not require to go into it now. It shows the way that the control of the Board of Trade is being used.

As to the knowledge and experience that the Board of Trade have, as against that of the local planning authority, in deciding such matters, I think it is quite right to say that the actual decision as to where any industry should go, and where building should be permitted for industrial purposes, is based almost entirely on a forecast of the working population so many years ahead, the number of people who are likely to be available for employment, and the amount of employment likely to be available for them. Those matters come entirely within the function of the Ministry of Labour, but it is said that the Board of Trade should have the deciding voice in the matter on account of their overriding knowledge of, and interest in, the industry of the country as a whole. I can assure your Lordships, however, that that is not in fact applied At all generally to decisions of this sort—at least, it is not in our experience.

As I have said, the criterion is the probable labour position a short time ahead, which is one of the important things. There seems to be no justification for saying that the Board of Trade should have the overriding decision in the matter. I would have liked to put down that it should be the Minister of Labour who should be consulted. I think that would be a quicker and more direct way of getting an answer. But I did not want to confuse the issue and, knowing the machinery whereby Government Departments consult regionally on these matters, it seemed to me that that side would take care of itself, because they are generally in consultation by means of various regional Government Committees. So a request for consultation with one would be very much the same as a request for consultation with another.

But I do not think it is fair to put decisions of this sort in the hands of people working in official positions in different Government Departments. It is extremely difficult to decide where a factory is likely to be of the greatest advantage in the future, and it is very important that the decision to embark on the trouble and effort of building and equipping the factory, of starting it in production and keeping production going, should be so far as possible taken by those who are to have the responsibility for running it. I quite appreciate the importance of the policy of full employment and the importance of trying to ensure that that employment is given in the right places. But I would urge strongly that it must be done with a great deal more detailed knowledge than is at present available in the regional offices of the different Government Departments, and it also must be done much more by inducement than by compulsion.

This condition of permission by the. Board of Trade for factory building of more than 3,000 square feet was incorporated in the original Distribution of Industry Bill. Distribution was dealt with in Clause 9, I believe, but it was taken out before the passing of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that it was taken out, not on account of any divergence of views as to whether or not industry should be persuaded to one place or another, but on account of objections made by people of all kinds in various parts of England who feared that they would have no more factory building and no further employment. This kind of provision belongs, at any rate, to the question of controlling the industrial structure of the country more than to a planning Bill. I believe that control should be by means of inducement, by persuasion, and should be based on the knowledge that the success of any particular enterprise is dependent on such things as the ease and cost of transport of the particular goods concerned, the accessibility of raw materials, and so on. It should be the policy of the Government to make clearly worth while the building or the extending of a factory. That has been the policy, and I think it still is. That is how all Government factories are now being built. They are being built not on a basis of telling people that they must go here or go there, but on the basis of providing a factory for rent at something like a reasonable cost.

If this clause is left in the Bill it will mean that there is far too much centralized control. It has often been said that efforts made before the war to revitalize special areas failed through lack of organization and the result has been a policy of central control. From what I have seen events are working out quite differently. I could quote quite a series of mistakes of policy which have made planning for some areas more difficult than should have been the case and have resulted, strictly speaking, in a very bad use of important and valuable industrial and other land. I do not want that to happen again. I want to see conditions made so that industry can of itself grow in the place where we want it to grow. I am convinced that that is the right policy in these matters. The Board of Trade, if subsection (4) is left in, will to some extent have control over other Government activities because of their connexion through the industrial work. I think that is a great mistake. The planning authority, with their local knowledge and access to all the local conditions which have to do with factory building, are a far better authority to decide. It is entirely cutting across local authority planning if refusal to permit the building of such a factory comes from the Board of Trade. It means that the plan has to be recast. It is not possible to decide certain arrangements for factories if the Board of Trade are in a position to contradict the proposals made.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.— (Viscount Ridley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

As I also have an Amendment down on this clause, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I do not propose to leave out the whole of subsection (4) and my Amendment differs from that just proposed in applying only to existing factories. It seems to be a far stronger case that the owner of an existing factory should be allowed to extend it without a great deal of difficulty or obstruction from the Board of Trade. First of all, on planning grounds, it cannot be wrong to do it because it is merely an extention to an industrial arrangement already in existence; and in a large number of cases firms have bought land next to their factories with a view to this very extension. But whether it is an extension to an existing factory or a new factory, it seems to me that one need not give the Board of Trade powers to object to any factory, for the simple reason that in regard to distribution of industry, they want to see, perhaps rightly, that any big factory employing a large number of people is not put down in an area where there are practically no employable people who are not already in employment.

This does not apply to a small factory. My noble friend who has just sat down thinks that a factory of 3,000 square feet is right. I put down 10,000 square feet, as has my noble friend Lord Addington, to any building, whether existing or not. Something on these lines really ought to be included because, first, it is unnecessary from the point of view of why the Board of Trade want this power and, secondly, the less permission required before people start expanding industry the better. It is for these reasons I speak in support of something at any rate on the lines of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend and myself.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I may save time if I tell your Lordships what I am proposing to do about this matter. I am opposed to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I do not think it is fair to entrust to local authorities this particular duty. After all, local authorities are human, or, at any rate, they are an aggregate of humans, and it is natural enough that every local authority who are doing their job want to attract into their own area all the industry they can. It was always said to be the case about London. Of course, manufacturers liked to come to London because they had their market so near at hand; and then London began to get bigger and bigger. I do not think it is fair to expect any local authority to take the attitude of "No, we do not think we ought to have any more factories here because there are other areas in the country which need them more." It is being unrealistic.

That is an attitude which must be taken by some central authority who can survey the needs of the country as a whole. Having said that, I may add that I am opposed to leaving out subsection (4) altogether, but I think there is a case, on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, just mentioned, for saying that there ought to be some small size with which the Board of Trade need not concern itself. What I am prepared to do—I have not an Amendment drafted, but I will have it drafted and put it down on the Report stage if your Lordships think this is a satisfactory compromise—is this. I will say that in the case of an existing factory there shall be power, without getting the consent of the Board of Trade—your Lordships follow that this does not mean that you must not get planning permission—to extend that factory so long as the extension is not more than 5,000 square feet, or 25 per cent. of the size of the existing factory, whichever is the less. In the case of a new factory, the 25 per cent, obviously is inapplicable, because you have no existing factory with which to compare it, and so, in the case of a new factory, it is up to 5,000 square feet. In those cases I think it right to say that that should be done always assuming that the necessary planning permission is obtained. I do not think it is necessary to trouble the Board of Trade about these comparatively small things because I think it is just as well that they should not get cluttered up with a lot of comparatively small requests. If that proposal is, broadly speaking, acceptable to your Lordships, then I propose to put that down on the Report stage and see if we can get rid of this difficulty on those lines. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a fair compromise, and, if it commends itself to your Lordships, I shall be happy to see that the necessary words are put down at a later stage.

LORD ADDINGTON

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he said. It is not quite so much as we hoped for, but it is perhaps as much as we expected. I am probably speaking for most people on this side of the House when I say that we accept this as a compromise. It certainly does go some way in that direction and it will lead to a certain simplification for a great many people who are hoping to extend factories in their own areas.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I am not feeling happy about it. I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor has made a suggestion which he thinks will meet the Amendment. I still think that the principle of the Board of Trade versus the authorities is going to nullify what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved at the end of subsection (4) to insert: Provided that the Board of Trade may, upon application being made to them for the purpose, certify that development of a defined area of land by the erection thereon of industrial buildings of a defined class or classes can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry and where such a certificate has been given no further certificate under this subsection shall be required in respect of development of that class or classes within that area.

The noble Viscount said: This is a slightly different point; its object is to ensure that, where a local authority or indeed anybody else establishes a trading estate and obtains the necessary consents from all the different Ministries concerned, they shall not be prevented by the Board of Trade from filling up that estate.

It seems to me quite possible, under the Bill as drafted, that the local authority might spend a great deal of money on draining an area, and then be told by the Board of Trade that until the industrial quarter of a new town in the neighbourhood was filled up they could not have any more industries. I quite agree that this is affected by the concession just made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor; nevertheless it does seem to me that if any conditions such as those are to be made, they should be imposed before the trading estate is established and not afterwards. I think it would help local authorities a good deal, and would enable them to know where they stood. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As this Amendment is merely permissive, and really gives power to the Board of Trade, my first reaction was to accept it; and I am prepared to accept the substance of it, if the noble Viscount will put it in rather a different form. I will tell him the difficulty I feel at the present time. I feel, and the Board of Trade feel very strongly, that if the words were in this form they might certify the development of a defined area of land on which, development can be carried on consistently, and that sort of thing, every local authority in the country would at once bombard the Board of Trade and say: "Please certify that our land is land of this description." That would lead to a great deal of delay, and would add to the already extremely large number of letters which the Board of Trade get. Cannot we do it in this way, and would not this meet the noble Viscount's point? I think he has a useful point here. The Amendment I would suggest is: Page 16, line 32, at end insert— Provided that the regulations made by the Board for the purposes of this subsection may direct that no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection, in any area prescribed by or under the regulations, of industrial buildings of any such class as may be so prescribed. I think that gives the noble Viscount, in substance, what he wants, and at the same time it avoids the difficulty which I pointed out, that if we do it in the other form every local authority will be troubling the Board of Trade to try to get their area declared an exceptional area. If the noble Viscount would be willing to move his Amendment in that form, I would be very ready to accept it.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I really do not understand all the subtleties of this distinction. It seems to me that the Board of Trade might equally be bombarded for the issue of these regulations in much the same way as for the issue of a particular certificate. I have not really had time to consider the effect of this proposal, but I shall be pleased to move the Amendment in this form, without prejudice to further consideration at a different stage. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of subsection (4) to insert: Provided that the extension of an existing industrial building upon land which is in the same ownership as such existing industrial building on the 7th day of January, 1947, or the erection upon such land of any additional building for use by the same owner, shall not require to be the subject of such certification by the Board of Trade.

The noble Earl said: I do not know whether I really need go over all the ground which we have been previously discussing on Clause 13 with regard to the certification by the Board of Trade of any new factory. I put this Amendment down before I was aware of the proposals which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, intends to produce at the next stage of the Bill. I would ask him whether he would see his way to accept my Amendment which deals entirely with those industries which own their own land in the neighbourhood or adjoining the present industrial building, and upon which they should be allowed to build without having to get the certification of the Board of Trade. I agree that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment with regard to existing factories goes some considerable way to meet me, but whether on second thoughts he will agree to this Amendment I wait with hope to see. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I made my suggestion by way of compromise, having gone as far as and perhaps rather farther than I should have done, and I am sorry to tell the noble Earl that I cannot possibly go as far as he wants me to go. Indeed, as I said, my suggestion was a compromise suggestion and represents the ultimate limits to which I am able to go. I am afraid I cannot say anything further.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Perhaps after he has slept on my Amendment to-night, he will come to the conclusion that it is better than his own. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ADDINGTON had given notice to move at the end of subsection (4) to insert: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the erection of a building which will have an aggregate floor space not exceeding ten thousand square feet. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is partly covered by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I believe the limit of 10,000 square feet is the one which at present exists under Section 9 of the Distribution of Industry Act, so that at the present moment the Board of Trade allow new buildings up to 10,000 square feet. I would be very happy to accept half that limit, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Appeals to Minister.

15.—(1) Where application is made under this Part of this Act to a local planning authority for permission to develop land, or for any approval of that authority required under a development order, and that permission or approval is refused by that authority, or is granted by them subject to conditions, then if the applicant is aggrieved by their decision he may by notice served within the time, and in the manner prescribed by the development order, appeal to the Minister:

(3) Unless within such period as may be prescribed by the development order, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority, the local planning authority either—

1. (a) give notice to the applicant of their decision on any application for permission to develop land, or for any approval required under a development order, made to them under this Part of this Act, or
2. (b) give notice to him that the application has been referred to the Minister in accordance with directions given by him under the last foregoing section,

the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to the application as if the permission or approval to which it relates had been refused by the local planning authority.

(4) Provision may be made by a development order for securing that in the case of decisions by a local planning authority of such classes as may be prescribed by the order (being decisions relating to the design or external appearance of buildings or other similar matters) any appeal under this section shall lie to an independent tribunal established in accordance with the provisions of that order instead of to the Minister; and in relation to any such appeal the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order, as they apply in relation to appeals to the Minister thereunder.

LORD HAMPTON moved in subsection (1) after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: "This Amendment leaves the time within which appeals must be made to be set out in the development order. In appeals which involve very closely the rights of the subject the applicant should be enabled to ascertain his rights through the comparatively simple process of reading an Act of Parliament and not by going through a multiplicity of orders which may have been repealed, or are about to be repealed. A period of twenty-eight days was inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in Section 10, and I am told it has worked quite satisfactorily. I see no reason why it should not be included in this Bill also. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, after ("time") insert ("not being less than twenty-eight days").—(Lord Hampton.)

LORD HENDERSON

I am very happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CARRINGTON moved at the beginning of subsection (3) to leave out "Unless." The noble Lord said: All the three Amendments which stand in my name are really one, and with your Lordships' permission I shall discuss them as. a whole. As the Bill stands at the moment there is no obligation upon the local planning authority either to consider the application for permission to develop or to inform the applicant of their decision. Most of your Lordships have had experience in delays caused by local and other authorities, and I think it would be desirable to have some words in the Bill which would make it necessary for the local planning authority to make some decision within a reasonable time. It would moreover prevent many unnecessary appeals to the Minister which would also put the applicant to a certain expense. In the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 there was a stipulation that if no answer was received to an application for development within two months, permission was deemed to have been granted. Although this was reversed in the interim Act of 1943 there still remains a provision whereby an applicant could apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for his application to be considered. The reason why it is proposed to leave out the words on Page 18 from line 10 to line 14 is that if the application to develop is refused, appeal can still be made under subsection 1 of this clause. This is a modest Amendment and I hope that the Government will look upon it with favour. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 44, leave out ("Unless").—(Lord Carrington.)

LORD HENDERSON

I have a great deal of sympathy with the object which the noble Lord has in mind, but I think I can assure him that: the Amendment is unnecessary. The Amendment seeks to place upon the local planning authority a specific obligation to notify an applicant, either of their decision or of the fact that the application has been referred to the Minister, and to do so within such period. as may be prescribed by the development order or within such extended period as may be agreed. It does not, however, say that any consequence will follow if a local planning authority fail to fulfil this obligation. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the ap- plicant of the automatic right of appeal at the end of the prescribed period which he has under the clause as it is at present, and to saddle him with the obligation of taking the necessary action, possibly by way of mandamus, to get a decision from the local planning authority.

I appreciate that the noble Lord's Amendment is prompted by the view that it is unsatisfactory that an applicant should get no reply but merely a "deemed refusal," particularly as I understand that some applicants have apparently been unaware of their right to appeal at the end of the prescribed period. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that everything possible will be done, either by a printed statement on the application form or by whatever other means are available, to make it clear to applicants that if they get no reply within the prescribed period they can appeal. I can also assure the noble Lord that the Minister will draw the attention of all local authorities to the strong desirability of letting all applicants have a decision within the prescribed period. In view of that, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

The noble Lord said that nothing much would happen if there was no reply, but of course something does happen. If you do not receive a reply you are refused the permission for which you have applied. That is happening, and there seems to be no indication that in the process, so to speak, of not getting a reply, you are entitled to appeal. You do not know how long you have to wait before you get a reply. I have tried this with Government Departments in other directions. I have written and written and demanded a reply. I have even sent telegrams, but sometimes even a telegram does not disturb them into action. At what stage in this process of silence are you, in fact, to be able to appeal against the refusal which has not been given you, because you do not know whether it is or is not a refusal?

LORD HENDERSON

It is within such period as may be prescribed.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

In the order?

LORD HENDERSON

And if the reply does not come within that period then the applicant has a right to make his appeal. I think if the noble Earl will look at the original clause he will see that there is a right of appeal given there, if there is a negative reply, within the prescribed period; and, at the second stage, where there is no reply given, or no indication at all that the matter has been referred to the Minister within the prescribed period, the applicant again has a right of appeal. That is taken away by the Amendment. If the clause is left as it is he retains the right, and I have given two assurances which I think will obviate a good deal of the trouble which has led the noble Lord to put down this Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I regret I did overlook the "period as may be prescribed."

LORD CARRINGTON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord and, in view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL OF RADNOR moved in subsection (4) after "matters" to insert: other than agricultural buildings as defined in section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, in respect of which any appeal under this section shall lie to the Minister of Agriculture. The noble Earl said: Page 18, line 18, is in the middle of subsection (4) of this clause, and it provides for decisions relating to the design or external appearance of buildings, or other similar matters; that is to say, matters of taste. My Amendment proposes to leave questions of that nature, not to the impartial tribunal which it is proposed to set up under the Bill, but, so far as agricultural buildings are concerned, to the Minister of Agriculture. This might well be a very important point for the individual farmer. One has, I regret to say, not a very high opinion of impartial tribunals of this nature when it comes to functional buildings such as agricultural buildings. To the eye of the artistic they very often are not beautiful buildings, to the eye of the artistic they are very often not where they are best concealed, or fit in with the landscape; but they are functional buildings, and for that reason they have a place, and no other place, on the farm concerned where they are most useful to that farm.

Their function dictates their design. It may be that it is a Dutch barn, which is not a very beautiful thing from the artistic point of view. Or again it may be a grain dryer or a grass dryer. Their shape is dictated by their function. The material of which they are constructed is dictated partly by their function and partly by the pocket of the man who has to put them up. It is, therefore, very right and proper, I suggest, that in an important matter such as farm buildings the Minister of Agriculture should be the arbitrator rather than some impartial tribunal whose consideration of the matter will not be from the point of view of the farm or the farmer or the productivity of the land, but obviously, from the whole tenor of this subsection, from artistic and amenity aspects. It would be a considerable reassurance to those who are concerned in agriculture if this Amendment were agreed to, and I am quite certain that it would save a deal of trouble in the future. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 18, after ("matters") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl. This Amendment furnishes an illustration of the problem—which underlies this Bill so frequently—of reconciling two conflicting interests. I confess that the arguments nearly balance. I put it to the Committee quite frankly in this way. Suppose you have one of the most beautiful villages in England, and at a spot which is in the midst of a very beautiful view a farmer wants to put up—not down in the valley, mark you, but on the very spot itself—a Dutch barn or some concrete and iron building which is clearly an eyesore. Ought he to be allowed to do so? Would it be fair that such a matter should be decided from the point of view of agricultural considerations? On the other hand, I think it is clearly quite wrong that the agricultural question should be eliminated. Obviously, whoever is going to decide a question of this kind should be in a position in which he is able to say that he understands the agricultural argument in favour of the building, but equally, I think, he must have some regard to the argument respecting amenities and appearance.

I think that here we all want to achieve the same sort of objective. I understand what it is that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, wants. You should not have—I hope this is not an unseemly way of referring to them—long-haired æsthetes dealing with agricultural matters about which they know absolutely nothing. Now this subsection makes provision for the establishment of an independent tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the development order. There is thus already power, where necessary, to appoint to the tribunal an agricultural expert. I would suggest that the independent tribunal to be appointed should at least have as one member an agriculturist who will know what he is talking about and who will see that the agricultural claim is properly weighed. On the other hand, I do not think it would be right that it should be left entirely to the agriculturist if there are æsthetic considerations. Where there are such considerations they ought to be weighed in the balance as against the others.

I suggest, therefore, that it is desirable to deal with the matter in this way. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that provision will be made in the development order that in this sort of case there shall be someone representing the agricultural interest. Further, I may tell the noble Earl that it is proposed to make provision in the general development order requiring the authority to whom application is made to consult with the agricultural executive committee in any cases involving questions of agricultural development. I think that that is important because it means that before you get to the independent tribunal stage at all the authorities will have to consult the agricultural executive committee before they pronounce upon this question in the first instance. With these two assurances I hope the noble Earl will rest satisfied with what I have said.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am very grateful. That second assurance is one I was going to suggest myself. It is one which is far more important than having a single agricultural expert amongst those people. I do not quite remember his description of what the individual tribunal would be, but it was a more courageous description than I dare to make, and the agricultural expert would be only one lone voice among many Consultation with the agricultural executive committee at an early stage of the proceedings will make all the difference in the world. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Applications to determine whether compensation required]:

LORD HENDERSON

These four Government Amendments are drafting Amendments, consequential on the Government Amendment on page 15, line 27. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 18, line 25, leave out from ("person") to ("land") in line 27 and insert ("who proposes to carry out any operations on land or make any change in the use of");

Page 18, line 28, leave out from ("of") to ("would") in line 29 and insert ("those operations or the making of that change in the use of the land");

Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("whether") to ("having") and insert ("an application for permission in respect thereof is required under this Part of this Act");

Page 18, line 33, leave out from ("for") to the second ("or") in line 34 and insert ("such permission").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

They are consequential, and we have no objections.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [Supplementary provisions as to grant of permission]:

LORD HENDERSON

This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on a preceding Amendment on page 15, line 27.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("then") in line 28.—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

10.18 p.m.

Clause 18:

Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases.

18.—(1) Where permission to develop any land is refused, whether by the local planning authority or by the Minister, or an application in that behalf made under this Part of this Act, or is granted by that authority or by the Minister subject to conditions, then if any owner of the land claims—

1. (a) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state of development, whether by reason of the deterioration or obsolescence of buildings or the occurrence of war damage or otherwise;
2. (b) in a case where permission to develop the land was granted as aforesaid subject to conditions, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with those conditions; and

he may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act, serve on the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated a notice (hereinafter referred to as a "purchase notice") requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Where a purchase notice is served on any council under this section, that council shall forthwith transmit a copy of the notice to the Minister, and subject to the following provisions of this section the Minister shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the foregoing subsection are fulfilled, confirm the notice, and thereupon the council shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on such date as the Minister may direct:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment was really suggested to me by Lord Llewellin's Amendment, and again I am guilty of plagiarism. His Amendment is to insert "howsoever," because he wanted to bring in the application of what is known as the ejusdem generis rule, which can be destroyed by the use of the word "howsoever." I suggest that a better way is to leave out those words altogether and stop at the word "state." Paragraph (a) would then read: "that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state." There is then no need for the ejusdem generic rule, and accordingly there is no need for the word "howsoever." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 7, leave out from ("State") to end of line 10, and insert ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

That does have the same effect as my Amendment. However, I do not object to plagiarism by the Lord Chancellor in accepting some Amendments of mine!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 16, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) Where a purchase notice is served on the council of a county borough or county district under the preceding subsection and the land the subject thereof has been the subject of an application in regard to which the Minister of Transport, under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section thirteen of this Act has issued directions restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority, then the Minister shall, if he confirms the purchase notice, provide that the interest of the owner of the land shall be purchased by him and not by the council. The noble Lord said: Under Clause 13 (3) (b) of the Bill, the Ministry of Transport may, in the case of development affecting trunk roads, give directions "restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority" and now under this Clause 18 where the owner of the land affected makes the claims therein referred to, he may serve on the council of a county borough or county district concerned a purchase notice requiring the council to purchase his interest in the land.

On the face of it, that would seem reasonable and it is what this Amendment sets out to do. If the Minister of Transport has imposed the conditions which have led to the claim by the owner, he should be responsible for meeting the claim. Therefore, we want an assurance from the Minister that local authorities will not be involved in any expense by reason of restrictions which they are compelled to impose at the instance of the Minister of Transport. I believe again, when this matter was brought up in the Committee stage in another place, that the Minister of Transport undertook to have another look at the clause to see if he could make any provision with the limited classes of case to which I have made reference. As far as we can see, there has not been any result of the Minister's investigations. I think the results he aimed at would be met by this Amendment, which I therefore beg to move.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment as drafted is, I think, too wide. May I indicate the sort of cases in which it would operate? The Minister of Transport often has plans for a trunk road, or it may even be the moulding of a corner to make it rather safer for the pedestrian; and that is a case where he might restrict the grant of permission by the local planning authority to some extent or other. He may, for instance, want twelve feet of a field and so restrict it. It would be quite wrong, I think, to impose upon him the obligation to buy the whole field and I do not think the noble Lord would want such a thing at all. I think the right way to deal with this problem (and that is why we put in Clause 95 at a late stage in the proceedings in another place) is to say this: Where the matter is affected by the requirements of the Minister of Transport, he may pay an appropriate contribution—in the event of disagreement to be settled by the Treasury—to the local authority. The noble Lord will see that that is what we have got.

Clause 95 says: Where compensation is payable by a local authority under this Act in consequence of any decision or order given or made under Part III of this Act … then if that decision or order was given or made wholly or partly in the interest of any service which is provided by a Government Department and the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Road Fund, the Minister responsible for the administration of that service may pay to that authority, out of moneys so provided a contribution of such amount as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. That, I think, is the right way to do it. As the noble Lord will see, to make him buy the whole interest, if he is concerned only with a narrow strip, is obviously wrong. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that that clause (which was put in at a comparatively late stage for that purpose) meets the very real point he has in mind.

LORD ADDINGTON

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. As long as we can be assured that the Minister will make reasonable payments, and that the "may" means that we shall get them, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (2), after "fulfilled" to insert "within four months of the receipt by him of the said copy." The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is a very clear one: it is to avoid unreasonable hardship on an owner because it is quite indefinite as to when he will receive an answer confirming his notice. It will be appreciated by the Committee that before the owner can invoke the powers under this clause the land must become incapable of reasonably beneficial ownership. Therefore, when the landlord does make his application, he will already be suffering loss. I venture to suggest that it is not reasonable that he should have to wait indefinitely before he can recover his capital and possibly go elsewhere. The point here is that there should be some indication in the Bill—which I hope His Majesty's Government will consider desirable—so as to avoid any unreasonable delay. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister expressed his recognition that the owner should not be kept in suspense when he is told he cannot use the land for the purpose for which he wants to use it, and that there is no alternative use, and he wants his land acquired. It is right that a decision shall be taken as quickly as possible. Although the Amendment on which that was said is not strictly on all fours with that which I am suggesting here, at the same time I think the same argument applies to the case which I venture to put before your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 35, after ("fulfilled") insert ("within four months of the receipt by him of the said copy.")—(Lord O'Hagan.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. A Ministry are usually represented as a paragon of virtue and promptitude. Those who have been in them know that there is, whatever may be said outwardly, quite a considerable amount of delay, and it is just as well in cases of this sort to have some deadline beyond which the Ministry cannot go before some kind of action is taken. The best way of getting anything done at the Admiralty was to use what they call the yellow jacket. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, will remember the yellow jacket, which could be authorized only by a member of the Board, and to which the answer had to come back within seven days. That was a very good way of getting a prompt decision from the Department on some matter which had to be dealt with urgently. It is urgent for these people that they should not be kept waiting too long. As my noble friend has pointed out, the Minister in another place said that two months was too short, but showed himself in general sympathy with the idea that there should be some limit of time. If it was seven days for these yellow jackets at the Admiralty, surely it is reasonable to allow four months in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Like the Minister in another place I have sympathy with this, because I like Government Departments to act with reasonable promptitude. I cannot help feeling that the trouble is this. If you impose a time limit like this, although it is intended to be a maximum it often becomes a sort of standard. In simple cases I do not think anything like four months will be required—it ought to be very much more prompt than that. But in really difficult cases I am frankly doubtful whether four months will be sufficient. May I just ask noble Lords to consider for a moment what might happen? The Minister has to do a number of things. First, he has to review the planning decision and, of course, he may have to consult, and frequently will have to consult, local authorities and other Ministries. He may have to come to the Cabinet. He did recently, and that took two meetings. Then he may have to consider whether some other permission ought to be given, and that again is a process which may involve consultation with local authorities and Departments.

Again, assuming that the Minister agrees with the local planning decision and does not decide to grant an alternative permission, he still has to consider whether the land has become incapable of reasonable beneficial use. For this purpose he will very likely have to inspect the property and get further information from the applicants. After he has reached a tentative conclusion he has to give twenty-eight days' notice of his proposal and at the end of the twenty-eight days—this is all part of the four months—he may have to arrange for a local inquiry. He has to allot an inspector, find a place to hold the inquiry, serve further notices, and then reconsider the case in the light of the inspector's report when he has received it. In determining the question whether the property is capable of reasonable beneficial use he would probably re- quire further particulars and information from the owner. It would be obviously intolerable and unfair if the owner, by the simple process of not answering a letter very promptly or by a failure to supply the necessary details for a few weeks because he was ill, abroad, or hunting, should then say, "Well the time has expired; you are finished and you cannot do anything." Therefore it does, seem to me that it is very difficult to accept a time limit which, in the extreme and exceptional case, would be insufficient. In the ordinary case it seems to me that four months is far too adequate a time. That does seem to me the difficulty in accepting a time limit which is to apply in all these cases, and consequently I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not know where the noble and learned Viscount finds all these things which have to be done. The idea here is to get some action out of the Ministry. If they are going to set up a local inquiry, of course that is quite a different matter, but it seems to us that in the sequence of events which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has adumbrated happening in a difficult case, this would be going on for months and months and months. I see little point in his remarks that the person himself is delaying the proceedings, because it is on his behalf that we are asking that he should not be put in doubt for too long. We know that every Ministry are reluctant to have any time limit put on them, but in this case we should have some limit to the time that may be taken because even though four months is the maximum, a maximum sometimes tends to become a minimum. There is no reason to suppose that this Ministry are worse than others, but it is not unlikely that they are going to say in each case "We have four months, so we will not deal with the case until the four months have elapsed." If that suggestion should come from the Ministry, it would surely be the business of the Permanent Secretary to see that that atmosphere does not exist in that Ministry. I think that that argument falls through the ground. I think we want some limit, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will take another look at this.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I also should like to make an appeal, and to emphasize what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said. There seems to be a certain lack of, I will not say coherence, but of logic in the noble and learned Viscount's argument. He began by saying that a maximum often ends by being a minimum—and then went on to say that the maximum was not long enough. He painted a terrifying picture of the machinery which has to be set in motion; and many noble Lords must have felt that the Bill was in danger of becoming seriously overweighted against the applicant. For these reasons I hope the matter may be reconsidered. The portion of the Lord Chancellor's argument about the landlord or owner holding up the proceedings seemed to me to have no bearing upon the Amendment, because it says clearly in Subsection (2) that a copy of the notice shall be forthwith transmitted by the council to the Minister, and it is only after this has been received by the Minister that the four months to which the Amendment applies comes into the picture at all. It is four months in the Minister's hands, and surely that ought to be long enough. If the Lord Chancellor likes to make it five or six months it would be better than nothing.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will gladly put it to the Minster and see if I can do anything on the Report stage. But perhaps I may be allowed to point out that in the vast majority of cases, four months is far more than adequate. I should be very sorry to let anybody think that they could take four months; but in wholly exceptional cases four months would be quite inadequate. I gave an exceptional case as an illustration, and noble Lords will see that this is one of the things the Minister has to decide. If he is to apply his mind to that it would be quite frequently that he would want to obtain further information from the owner of the land after he had the notice. What I was pointing out was this: If by any chance the owner of the land ever refused to give, or delayed in giving, that further information which the Minister thought he wanted to give that as a reason for saying that his time had run out is something which no fair-minded man would wish to do. That is the exceptional case, but I will gladly ask the Minister if he can do anything about it. I will gladly ask him, and I will be able to tell your Lordships on the Report stage whether or not he says, having regard to the arguments which have been adduced, that this is a matter in which he ought to make some concession. I am entirely in sympathy with this course being taken, and I will bring it to the attention of the Minister.

LORD O'HAGAN

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has dealt with this. So far as the last part of his remarks is concerned there is, I think, undoubtedly a very strong case for some period being put into this Bill. I think it is patent to everybody, even on the showing of the noble and learned Viscount himself; and if a further time than the four months is thought desirable I, for my part, shall not stand against it. In view of the fact that there has been an assurance to look further into this matter—the suggestion I think probably in most quarters of the House seems to be that it is a reasonable suggestion—I trust that some way will be found to meet the case that has been put, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Amendment at the present stage, although reserving the right to put it down at a subsequent stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (2) to leave out "to be" and insert "having regard to the probable ultimate use of the land, that it is." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 14, leave out ("to be"), and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This too is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 15, after ("it") insert ("either in relation to the whole or in relation to any part of the land to which it relates").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Compensation for refusal of permission in certain cases.

19.—(1) Where, on application made under this Part of this Act for permission to carry out development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act (other than development of the class specified in paragraph 1 of that Schedule), permission for that development is refused by the Minister, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted by the Minister subject to conditions, then if, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, it is shown that the value of the interest of any person in the land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted, or had been granted unconditionally, as the case may be, the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation (to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act) equal to the difference.

(3) Where a purchase notice served under the last foregoing section in respect of any interest in land does not take effect by reason of any such direction as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (2) of that section, then if it is shown, on a claim made to the local planning authority, that the value of that interest, calculated with regard to the direction, but on the assumption that no permission would be granted under this Part of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the direction, is less than the value of that interest calculated without regard to the grant of that permission, but on the assumptions which would be required to be made under the following provisions of this Act for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable on a purchase of that interest in pursuance of the purchase notice, the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation (to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act) equal to the difference.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 45, after ("in") insert ("Part II of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.44 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(other than development of the class specified in paragraph 1 of that Schedule)." The noble Lord said: As a Government Amendment, which this has now become by the addition of the Lord Chancellor's name, it is a purely drafting Amendment. It is consequential on the last Government Amendment to the same line, which in turn prepares the way for Amendments to the Third Schedule. I must, however, in justice to my noble friend, point out that the object of the Amendment as it originally stood was something quite different—namely, to secure payment of compensation under Clause 19 on the refusal of permission to rebuild a place which was in existence on the appointed day. This object is not secured by the Amendment in its present form. Clause 19, as amended by this and the last Amendment, will still exclude from compensation the refusal of permission to rebuild. I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in submitting the same Amendment, had in mind in particular the case of a house that had been demolished and for which there was refusal of permission to rebuild. To put it in a sentence, the reason for this is that a provision for compensation under Clause 19 is unnecessary, because in the case supposed (namely, where the old building has been destroyed by fire, or otherwise, and permission to rebuild is refused) the owner will be entitled, under Clause 18, to call on the local authority to buy his land at "existing use value," unless he receives permission for some other development which would enable the land to be put to a reasonably beneficial use.

As regards the matter of rebuilding generally, if rebuilding were included in Clause 19 every owner of any standing property that had been up for some years (and particularly property in areas scheduled by a plan for comprehensive redevelopment in the future) would be able to apply for permission to rebuild knowing in many cases that it would be refused. He would then be able to claim compensation for the reversionary site value—that is to say, he would be able to claim for capital loss amounting to the reversionary value which the site would have at some future date when the existing building became incapable of beneficial use, even though his existing annual income was unaffected, and often likely to remain unaffected for some years. The local authority, in effect, would have to pay for the reversion without in fact getting a conveyance of any interest in the land at all. Having given an answer to the noble Earl on his Amendment, as it originally was, I hope that he will be content now to let the matter go forward. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 45, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 46.—(Lord Henderson.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I put this Amendment down thinking that it was one of some considerable importance and I was deeply flattered that it should have been adopted by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. This confirmed me in my opinion that it must be of some importance. I was very glad to find it accepted by the Government. Now Lord Henderson punctures my balloon by saying that from the point of view of the Government it is merely a drafting Amendment. He has given a long explanation, and I am grateful to him, but as it is now nearly ten minutes to eleven, and the Amendment has been adopted by His Majesty's Government, I will not say more upon it. I would like, however, to look into what Lord Henderson has said, and if I find any flaws in it I will try to put them right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

The next Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 27, at end insert (", or does not take effect in relation to any part of the land").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

I hope your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that this Amendment, the consequential Amendment at page 22, line 40 and the new subsection proposed to be inserted at page 22, line 42, are drafting Amendments designed to clarify the effect of Clause 19 (3) which has been criticized as being somewhat difficult to understand. It is hoped that by the use of the two "labels" namely "permitted development value" an a "compulsory purchase value," and the division of subsection (3) into two subsections, the purpose of the provision will be easier to follow. I can assure the Committee that there is no change in the meaning of the clause as now proposed. I have a considerable explanation to offer the Committee if it is pressed for, but I think you may accept my word that this is in fact a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 31, leave out from the beginning to the second "the'') in line 39 and insert ("within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act that the permitted development value of that interest or, as the case may be, of that interest so far as it relates to that part of the land, is less than its compulsory purchase value,").—(Lord Henderson.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not agree that it is altogether drafting, but I have been told by someone who understands that it is all right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON

This is also a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 40, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person entitled to that interest").—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved, after subsection (3) to insert: ("(4) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the expression 'permitted development value,' in relation to an interest in land in respect of which any such direction as is mentioned in that subsection has been given, means the value of that interest calculated with regard to the direction and to any determination of the Central Land Board under subsection (4) of section sixty-seven of this Act, but on the assumption that no permission would be granted under this Part of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the direction; and the expression compulsory purchase value,' in relation to any such interest, means the value of that interest as it would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of section forty-nine of this Act for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation payable on a purchase thereof in pursuance of the purchase notice.") The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. My explanation covered this position too.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 42, at end insert said subsection."—(Lord Henderson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

10.57 p.m.

Clause 20 [Revocation and modification of permission to develop]:

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of the clause to insert the following new subsection: (4) For the purposes of this and the next succeeding section, where permission to develop land has been granted on an application made in that behalf under this Part of this Act and the land, or any part thereof, in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a Government Depart or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect, of the land so acquired.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment in the name of the Earl of Radnor and myself deals with a further important point. Under Clause 20, a development plan can be revoked or modified by order, and that order has to be approved by the Minister. Under Clause 21, where a development plan has been revoked or modified by an order approved by the Minister the owner can get back a repayment for expenditure incurred. My Amendment deals with the case where the owner had permission to develop and it was not revoked or modified by order but the land was compulsorily purchased by a Government Department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Bill. It is quite true that under Clause 70 the owner can claim repayment of the development charge, but that is all. He cannot get any return for abortive expenditure which he must have incurred in carrying out a development plan up to the time the whole plan was revoked by the compulsory purchase. What I am seeking to secure is that the owner should not only get, as he does get, the repayment of the development charge but he should also get a return of the expenditure which he incurred in carrying out the development plan at the original time. I feel it is a fair and reasonable Amendment, and I trust the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accept it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Earl's law was right, I would certainly accept his Amendment, but, with great respect, I think it is a complete fallacy. He obviously thinks that any expenditure incurred which proves abortive by reason of compulsory acquisition of land would not be taken into account in assessing compensation for purchase. That is a fallacy. It is taken into account. If the owner has started on the basis of his permission, in so far as the works have been done their value would be included in the purchase price, and in so far as the development charge has been paid the payment would have increased the current value of the land and would be accordingly reflected in the purchase price. That is in Clause 49. And in so far as he incurred abortive expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 21 in preparation of plans, liability under the contract, and so on, he is entitled to claim for such loss under the head of disturbance, as part of the compensation due to him from the acquiring authority. That is secured by an ordinary operation of the existing law governing compulsory acquisition, and requires no special provision in this Bill.

Let me read from the standard work, Cripps on Compensation, Eighth Edition, on page 183. It says: The less to an owner, whose lands are acquired or have been taken, omitting all questions of injury to adjoining lands, includes not only the value of such lands but all damage directly consequent on the taking thereof under statutory powers. This rule is recognized by Rule (6) in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which provides that Rule (2) of that section—that is to say, the value of the land to be market value by a willing seller—shall not affect the assessment of compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of land. I have gone into this matter with the valuation office and it is quite clear that the abortive expenditure would not be reflected in the value of the land: that is to say, such expenditure as, for instance, Clause 21 expenditure, preparation of plans and the like, is in practice eligible for compensation under the heading of "disturbance." Therefore, without this Amendment, we have already got it.

This Amendment could not possibly be accepted because it would have the effect of duplicating part of the compensation payable on the compulsory acquisition and it would make the local authority pay some part of the compensation for the compulsory acquisition although they are not the acquiring authority. For those reasons, therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment which goes a. good deal further than I think the noble Earl realizes. I can assure him—if he wants to go into the matter further I shall be very pleased to go into it with him—that the point in his mind is already covered and that this Amendment is quite unnecessary.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Could the noble and learned Viscount assure us that, in the event of compulsory acquisition or, say, part of a house which has been built and which in itself is not wanted by the acquirer and is therefore a detriment to the site from their point of view, expenditure on that building would, so far as it has gone, be included?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, because it is a complete fallacy to look at it from the point of view of the purchaser. You have to look at it from a very different point of view altogether and, assuming that the house as partly put up would be of value for some services, then, amongst the potential buyers for that piece of land, there would be somebody who would give more for the land; therefore, the building is included in the value of the land.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I was under the impression that Clause 20, which was the one, I think, on which the noble and learned Viscount relied in regard to anything of that kind, only came into operation if the plan were revoked or modified or permission to develop is revoked or modified. All we are seeking to do in this Amendment is to say that here, for the purposes of these two succeeding sections, where permission to develop land has been granted on an application made in that behalf … in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a Government Department or a local public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect of the land so acquired. That is in order to bring it within the ambit of Clause 20, which I do not believe it comes under unless it is considered that at the same time as you compulsorily acquire the land the permission is revoked. It certainly seems to me that where it is compulsorily acquired the man from whom the land is compulsorily acquired ought to get exactly the same compensation as a man gets if the permission is revoked or modified. After all, compulsory acquisition is a larger thing than revocation or modification of permission. We are only seeking to put the man whose land is compulsorily acquired into the same position as the man in whose case permission has been revoked or modified. It is bringing it within the ambit of Clause 20, and these words are really included in this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not rely on Clause 20; I rely on the ordinary application of the ordinary law for the compulsory acquisition of land. The compensation which the man gets would embrace these matters. What I would suggest to the noble Lord is this. If he will take the opportunity between now and the Report stage of consulting my experts, and if after consulting them he has any doubt on the point, by all means let him raise the matter again on the Report stage. I resist the Amendment on the basis that this matter is already covered by the existing law. If the noble Earl is satisfied that that is so, I feel sure he will not press the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I say one word on that point? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount and I could discuss it, if I am not satisfied. What we are seeking to do is eminently fair. I think the noble and learned Viscount is with me in that desire. If it is already covered by the Bill, naturally we shall not want to make any Amendment. If it is not covered, and the noble and learned Viscount is convinced it is not covered, and there is no issue between us that it is fair to put the two men in the same position, perhaps we could discuss it on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I fully agree with what my noble friend has said. It is clear that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been fully advised by his advisers. Between now and the Report stage I will also get briefed from another department. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

House resumed.