HL Deb 03 June 1948 vol 156 cc245-52

5.40 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, these are two regulations which, again, represent one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. They provide for exempting certain operations and uses of land from development charge. Before I go into the details of these regulations I might perhaps remind your Lordships that these are not the only operations and uses of land which will be exempt from development charge. The Act itself grants a number of exemptions in different places. For example, Section 12, which defines "development" puts a number of operations, including normal maintenance and repair of buildings, outside the definition of development and, therefore, outside liability for development charge. Other examples are given in the Third Schedule for buildings and uses of land existing at the appointed day, and Part VIII of the Act exempts a number of special classes of land, including dead-ripe land, unfinished buildings and land held by local authorities, statutory undertakers and charities. There are, moreover, special provisions for areas of comprehensive development, such as blitzed city centres and new towns.

In a sense, therefore, these regulations merely sweep up the odds and ends. I might also add that they are rather in the nature of a first shot at the problem. No doubt the experience of the Board will reveal other classes of development which ought to be exempted, and for that reason these regulations should therefore not be regarded as the last word. I am assured, however, that the Department consulted some forty-seven outside organisations which it was thought might be interested, and that the final draft of the regulations covers substantially all the points raised by these organisations. I do not think it is necessary to take your Lordships through all the exemptions one by one. They fall into three main groups.

The first group, Classes 1 to 3 gives the same tolerances for buildings erected or uses instituted after the appointed day as the Third Schedule gives for buildings and uses existing on the appointed day. That is to say, the owner of a building may rebuild without further development charge as often as occasion may require and may enlarge his building up to 10 per cent. of the original cubic content. Owners of land used for agriculture and forestry may carry out any building or other operations requisite to the use of their land for that purpose. This will cover, for instance, land reclaimed after the appointed day and put to agricultural use.

The second group, Classes 4 to 15 grant exemptions on de minimus grounds for a number of operations and uses of land which will not require an express individual planning permission, since they will be permitted by the General Development Order made on May 5 and laid before Parliament on May 6. Among the exemptions in that group, your Lordships might like to note Class 5, which will allow a householder to put up a tool shed or hen-house or any other building of that kind in his garden, and he can do this even when he has exhausted his 10 per cent. tolerance under the Third Schedule or Class 1 of these exemption regulations. Class 9 permits the use of any land for camping. Classes 11 to 13 enable estate owners and industrialists to maintain private roads and other services and to replace or rearrange essential plant and apparatus. Classes 14 to 15 exempt agricultural development by local authorities and statutory undertakers of a minor nature incidental to the public services which they administer. The third group, Classes 16 to 18, give some miscellaneous exemptions, of which the most important is Class 16, the use of any site for the display of advertisements.

The exemptions which these regulations give are unconditional exemptions, and I think your Lordships may assume that once an exemption has been given it is not likely to be withdrawn in a subsequent set of regulations. I must, however, enter a caveat, in the case of Classes 9 and 16, which deal with camping and the display of advertisements. These activities have been exempted because it is thought that on the whole the amounts involved are likely to be small and troublesome to collect. We do not want to put the Board in the position of spending £1 to collect 6d. But there may be a few cases where a substantial charge could properly be levied. The Departments have therefore authorised me to say that they propose to review these two exemptions at the end of three years and if, in the light of experience, the forms of camping and display of advertisements which ought to be liable to development charge can be clearly defined, the regulations will be modified accordingly. With that brief explanation I now move that the regulations be approved.

Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on May 12 last, be approved.—(Lord Henderson.)

THE MARQUESS OF READING

May I ask the noble Lord a question? He spoke at the end of his speech of the Departments authorising him to make a statement. Surely that is rather a departure from the normal Parliamentary procedure?

LORD HENDERSON

I apologise to your Lordships, and I am grateful to the noble Marquess for having called my attention to it. I should of course have said "the Ministers."

5.49 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This is rather an omnibus kind of regulation. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord laid emphasis on the fact that, even if one had enlarged one's house by 10 per cent., one would still be able to put up a hen-house without having to pay further development charge. It shows how far we are going in this matter, when the Treasury begin to get control. I suppose nobody ever thought he would have to pay development charge for putting up a chicken-run or chicken-house in his garden. Nor did I, for one, ever contemplate that under this Act it would be made more expensive to camp, or that people who lend their fields for camping purposes would in due course have to pay development charge. I hope that the Ministers will think gravely before they attempt to put a development charge on land which is lent so that people may spend a week or so in the summer camping out. But that is three years hence. I mention that because the noble Lord brought it up. It is exempted now and, from my own point of view, I hope it will always be exempted. I think it is the most healthy way for the townsman to get out into the country and to go into a tent for a little time in the summer. Therefore, the less you do to penalise him in that, the better.

LORD HENDERSON

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? One must remember that there is a development now in the sense of large-scale commercial camps—Butlin's, for example—and one has to bear in mind that, if a development of that sort takes place, it must in due course be dealt with. There is no intention of revising the regulations in order to hit the one small tent that is used for a week's holiday or at weekends.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord was referring only to this Class 9?

LORD HENDERSON

Yes

LORD LLEWELLIN

I have been round some of these Butlin's camps myself; they are excellent places. There is a camp which normally has a swimming pool, a dance hall, a cinema, a large number of bedrooms, both single and double, and a nursery, all built in. But then I come to the Class 9 exemption, which says: The use of any land for camping purposes or the placing thereon of any caravan or tent. I never thought that Butlin's camps were at present included in this exemption.

LORD HENDERSON

No, they are not. I was dealing with the point that we may have commercialisation developing, even on this basis. If that took place, it ought to be taken into account, and a development charge ought to be paid in such a case. In the ordinary way such development is exempt and, so long as it remains like that, it will continue to be exempt.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am glad to hear that. The Department gave us a warning of what they were intending to do, and so we have given them a warning of what we would say to them if anything of the sort happened. The noble Lord was more modest about this regulation than about the other. He said it was merely a first shot at the problem. I was pointing out in the other regulation that I certainly thought that that would not be the last shot at the problem. I have only one particular point that I wish to make upon it. It is a point of which I have already given some notice. On the discussion on the Report stage of this measure, my noble friend Lord Carrington moved an Amendment in the Schedules to the effect that the erection, enlargement, improvement or alteration of dwelling houses occupied by persons engaged or employed in agriculture, so long as they are so occupied, should be exempt. We had the advantage on that occasion of two speeches from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He said: I cannot speak again without the leave of the House and perhaps your Lordships will give me that leave. We are, of course, always glad to do that, and I am glad that we did so on that occasion.

The noble and learned Viscount went on to say: …where there is a will there is a way, and I can…tell him there is a will…but the way has not been found yet. At any rate, we have one satisfaction to-day, for the Lord Chancellor continued: If, when these regulations come up, your Lordships see that this concession is not there, I have no doubt that I shall be reminded of it on all sides of what took place to-day. I shall be very anxious to avoid having to be reminded of that fact. I venture to think that your Lordships may feel comparatively comfortable, though I cannot say more than I have because I have no authority to do so. This exemption is not in the regulations to-day and, although felt extremely comfortable between that assurance and the time that I read these regulations, I have felt less happy about it now that I have read them. However, I understand that there may be some difficulties about putting into a regulation of this sort the conditional exemption of a house. It was only conditionally that we asked that this exemption should be put in—so long as the house is occupied by somebody engaged in agriculture. That is all that we were pressing for. We do not want it for weekenders, or for any kind of cottages of that sort, even if they start by being agricultural dwellinghouses. However, if it is not in these regulations—and we are all agreed that it is not—and if it is the will of everyone—and we are all agreed that it is the will of everyone—that no development charge shall be taken on these houses, so long as they are proper and genuine, and are occupied by agricultural labourers, there may well be some other method of dealing with the problem. Perhaps it would be convenient now if either the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack could tell us whether any other way has been found because, so far as I am concerned, I hope that if there has been, we can approve this regulation without any further argument upon it. Can we now be given some assurance on the matter?

5.57 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

My Lords, I was rather horrified when I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, a few weeks ago in which he reminded me of that of which I did not wish to be reminded. I did not want to have to read up all these regulations again and try to remember what they are all about. So, thanks to the noble Lord's courtesy in giving me notice of the point, I took the matter up to find out what the position was. I find that it is as the noble Lord has stated; that is to say, that we cannot very well include this in a Schedule of Exemptions because, as your Lordships see, the exemption is conditional upon a state of affairs existing and continuing—namely, the house being occupied and continuing to be occupied by agricultural workers, and not being used as a week-end cottage. However, I have gone into the matter, and I am quite satisfied that we shall achieve the result which we all desire. Instructions will be issued to the Central Land Board to remit or postpone the collection of development charges, so long as the Board are satisfied that a house is reserved for a member of the agricultural population. Those instructions will be made public, and they will be published in the Board's annual report, so that they will be under the scrutiny of the House when that report comes to be debated. I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to go into further details with regard to this matter, but, if your Lordships do wish me to do so, I can. If your Lordships are interested in the actual machinery by which this will be done, I shall be happy to send any noble Lord a copy of the machinery; or I can deal with the matter more fully now.

LORD CARRINGTON

I would like to ask a question. Does that include the erection of agricultural houses? The Minister said nothing about them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes; I was careful to word my undertaking so as to include erection, and not merely alteration or improvement.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I can speak again only by leave of the House, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying that I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his reply. From my point of view, it is quite as satisfactory to have that assurance that the exemption will be in the regulation. I am glad that we have not had to make him uncomfortable. On the contrary, indeed; he has been of much comfort to us and to a large number of people who want to see these cottages being built for this all-important industry.

On Question, Motion agreed to.