§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received, I wonder whether I could have the guidance of your Lordships on one point. Your Lordships will observe that there are 111 Amendments to the Bill. A number of these are drafting Amend- 6 ments and Amendments consequential on changes that have already been made. If the course commended to your Lordships is approved, I shall be able to indicate as we come to batches of Amendments that these are drafting or consequential and that they may be taken together. If that course is adopted, my noble friend Lord Bathurst and I will be equally ready, of course, to deal with any Amendments on which any noble Lord desires to raise a point, but this course would save some time and I think would not make our attention to real points any the less careful. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, that course would be most acceptable to us. I agree that there may be occasions where an explanation may be called for, but, subject to that, it might be convenient and save a great deal of time if groups of Amendments were called together and, if possible, passed as a group.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Certification of appropriate alternative development]:
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
("() In determining, for the purposes of the issue of a certificate under this section, whether planning permission for any particular class of development might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, the local planning authority shall not treat development of that class as development for which planning permission would have been refused only that it would have involved development of the land in question (or of that land together with other land) otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto.")
§
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to remove a doubt about what is to be taken into account when the local planning authority are considering the issue of a certificate under Clause 5. Subsection (4) of the clause requires the
7
planning authority to state in the certificate the classes of development, if any, for which permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if the land were not being acquired by a public authority. In other words, they have to imagine that the land is not being acquired, and say what planning permissions they would have been prepared to give if the owner had made application. Section 14 (1) of the 1947 Act requires a local planning authority in dealing with an actual application for planning permission to
have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material thereto, and to any other material considerations.
§ In view of this, it is possible that a local planning authority might feel bound to say in their certificate that no development would have been permitted except in accordance with the marking on the plan for the land in question. If the land is shown, for example, as a site for public open space, this would mean that a certificate could not be issued for anything but an open space, irrespective of the merits of the case. The Amendment therefore provides that the local planning authority are not precluded from issuing a certificate for development which is out of accord with the plan. It thus makes clear that they are free to exercise a reasonable discretion, such as they would exercise in submitting a proposal for the alteration of the plan under Section 6 (2) of the Act.
§ The issue of certificates under Clause 5 is an important new function which is being given to local planning authorities, and the House may like to have some further explanation of the way in which it is intended that they should exercise it. Perhaps the most important point is that they should approach the question on broad and common-sense lines, remembering that a certificate is not a planning permission but a statement to be used in ascertaining the fair market value of the land. For example, suppose that land is shown in the development plan as part of an open space or a site for a school and is being acquired for that or a similar purpose. If there were no question of acquisition by a public authority, the owner might have expected to be able to sell the land with planning permission for some other form or forms of development. The purpose 8 of the certificate is to state what, if any, those other forms of development are. The planning authority will be expected to determine this question in the light of the character of the development in the surrounding area, as existing or planned, and exercising their judgment as planning authority as to what development would be appropriate, excluding only those forms of development which for some reason or other are inappropriate.
§ Some cases will be simple. For example, where land is surrounded by houses, a certificate for residential development would normally be appropriate. Other cases will be more arguable. Where the site is within a built-up area it is to be expected as a rule that the certificate would indicate some form of development. On "white land" outside the built-up area, the planning authority would no doubt consider carefully whether any development at all would be appropriate, other than that proposed by the acquiring authority. As this is a new matter I thought it might not be unhelpful if I indicated these lines. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I regard this as one of the most important of the Amendments on the Marshalled List. It provides, so to speak, the charter for local authorities to determine and to provide the certificates which are going to be so vital in the operation of this Bill. I am not too happy about the wording of the Amendment. I am much happier about the explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given of the Amendment than with the Amendment itself. That explanation is quite satisfactory, and if only one could be certain that local planning authorities would act on the basis of the explanation—indeed, if the explanation were written into the Bill and they were required so to act—I think it would be satisfactory to all parties. The difficulty is that, as the clause stands, it merely tells the local authorities that they are not bound to refuse—that is what it amounts to—any other development than the development for which they are acquiring compulsorily; that is to say, if they are acquiring a piece of 9 developed land for the purposes of an open space, this Amendment says that they need not refuse a certificate for some other purpose merely because of Section 14 of the 1947 Act and that they may grant a certificate allowing other forms of development. But they need not grant it.
The fairness or otherwise of the compensation that will be provided entirely depends on the way local authorities are going to operate. I fully realise that you cannot as a matter of practice incorporate an explanation by the Lord Chancellor into a Bill; nor has it any particular validity if it is done. I should like to ask two things. First, is it possible to give to local authorities the clearest possible guidance on the way in which they are expected to operate Clause 5? Secondly, would the Minister watch the way in which it is carried out and, if necessary—and no doubt questions will be asked in Parliament about it—make any amendments that will ensure that the intention of the clause is carried out?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to answer the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked. So far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the guidance being given which he would like to be given. I shall, of course, consult my right honourable friend and his advisers on that point, but it certainly appeals to me. Then, on the second question, I have no hesitation in giving the assurance which the noble Lord desires.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 to 9 are all drafting Amendments of the sort I mentioned a few moments ago, and with your Lordships' approval I will call on my noble friend Lord Bathurst to move those Amendments together.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Clause 8, page 11, line 36, leave out ("of that interest by that authority") and insert ("by that authority of land consisting of or including the land in which that interest subsists");
10§ Clause 9, page 13, line 20, after ("of") insert ("that Part of");
§ Clause 9, page 13, line 30, leave out from ("prospective") to end of line 33 and insert ("is or would be development arising from the circumstances of that case");
§ Clause 9, page 14, line 43, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("paragraph");
§ Clause 9, page 15, line 1, leave out from ("prospective") to end of line 4 and insert ("is or would be development arising from the circumstances of that case");
§
Clause 9, page 15, line 19, at end insert—
("() Any reference in this section to development (whether actual or prospective) which is or would be development arising from the circumstances of a case mentioned in the first column of the table set out in subsection (2) of this section—
§ Clause 18, page 24, line 28, leave out ("and the two next following sections") and insert ("section and in the following provisions of this Part of this Act")
§ Clause 20, page 30, line 3, at end insert ("and any reference in this section to subsection (5) of section eighteen of this Act shall accordingly include a reference to paragraph (d) of subsection (9) of the said section eighteen").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 26 [Exercise of powers of disposing of land]:
§ 2.57 p.m.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (2), and to insert instead:
() A disposal by an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies—
if (in either case) it is a disposal which, apart from this section, could not be effected except with the consent of a Minister, shall not be effected except with such consent as is mentioned in the next following subsection.() The said consent—
() Except with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies shall not sell, exchange or let any land, in the exercise of a power in relation to which subsection (1) of this section has effect, for a price, consideration or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions (including conditions as to payment or the giving of security for payment) subject to which the land is sold, exchanged or let.
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment, together with the three consequential Amendments, is to correct some minor defects in the clause. The general intention of the clause is to remove the need for the consent of a Minister to a disposal of land which, apart from the Bill, would have required consent, subject to the exceptions mentioned in subsections (2) and (3). It is not intended that any disposal which would not have required consent under the existing law should require it under the clause. But subsection (2) as it stands produces this effect in certain special cases. The redrafting effected by this Amendment prevents this. The first consequential Amendment, which is that at page 36, line 5, is consequential on the amendment to Section 47 (2) of the Housing Act, 1957, effected by the Eighth Schedule to the Bill. Under that section, as amended, the Minister's consent would not, apart from clause 26, be required unless it is proposed to dispose of land at less than the best price. As the Bill stands, however, subsections (1) and (2) 12 of Clause 26 would apply, with the result that the Minister's consent would be required under paragraph (b) if the land was bought compulsorily, whether or not the best price was being obtained. Thus a new control would be imposed, contrary to the intention of the clause. The Amendment prevents this by excluding the operation of Clause 26 (1) and thus also of subsection (2).
§ There are some local enactments which provide that land may not be disposed of for less than current market value without the consent of the specified Minister. As Clause 26 is at present drafted, such a disposal would no longer require consent under the local enactments, but a disposal of land at less than the best price would require the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. There seems no point in making such a change and the Amendment at page 36, line 34, preserves the existing position by providing that the Bill shall not apply to local enactments in so far as they provide for consent for disposals at less than current market value. There will thus be cases where, under a local enactment, the consent of the specified Minister will still be required for disposal of land at less than the current market value. If that land happens to be land—for example, an open space—which under the Bill cannot be disposed of without the consent of a Minister, the clause as at present drafted would have the result that the consent of two different Ministers would be required. The Amendment at page 26, line 49, prevents this, since it would be contrary to the intention of the clause to impose a dual control where only one previously applied. I beg to move the first Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, we are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation of the principal Amendment to this clause, as well as the consequential Amendments. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would be good enough to expand his explanation in this connection. As it now stands, subsection (2) of Clause 26 is concerned with the power of disposal, whereas the Amendment, in terms, is concerned with a disposal. There is, 13 of course, a vast difference between the power of disposal and an actual disposal. I am wondering what is in mind in seeking to alter the words of the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as I understand the position—and if I have not understood it fully I will of course write to the noble Lord and explain—the object of this Amendment is to deal with specific transactions, either where there is a sale at less than the real value, or the case where, under a local Act, in order to carry out a transaction the consent of another Minister other than my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has to be obtained. Therefore one has to inquire into the actual conditions of the transaction. That is how I understand it. If there is anything further I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord as soon as I have had a chance of confirming my point of view.
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to put another point. Is it the intention to provide by Amendments elsewhere for the situation of an authority having a power but not actually disposing of the property?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should like to look into that point. We think we have covered all that will be necessary for local authorities, but that is a very important point and I should like to check it again. I think it is all right, but I will certainly check it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 11. 12 and 13 are all consequential Amendments, and again with your Lordships' approval I would ask my noble friend Lord Bathurst to move them together.
§ Amendments moved—
§
Page 36, line 5, at end insert—
("(a) to section forty-seven of the Housing Act, 1957 (which relates to land in, surrounded by or adjoining a clearance area)
§
Page 36, line 34, at end insert ("or
(d) to any local enactment in so far as it provides (in whatsoever terms) that, except with the consent of a Minister specified
14
therein, land shall not be disposed of there under for a price, consideration or rent of a value less than the current market value of the interest disposed of")
§
Page 36, line 49, at end insert—
("() In determining, for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, whether a disposal of land under a local enactment is a disposal which apart from this section could not be effected except with the consent of a Minister, any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last preceding subsection shall be disregarded").—(Lord Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 26. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment, and the new clause, Amendment No. 28, go together. They discharge the undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the Committee stage to extend the provision for protecting persons who purchase from a local authority against the possibility that the local authority might fail to obtain the consent of a Minister in circumstances where such a consent is required. The present provision in Clause 26 (4) covers only consents required under Clause 26 (2). The Amendment withdraws that subsection, and it is replaced and extended by the new clause. The new clause is in general terms applying to all acquisitions, appropriations and disposals within the provisions of Part II of the Bill. Where a local authority to whom Part II of the Bill applies fail to get any Ministerial consent (which may be required under the Bill or otherwise) to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land, the new clause will validate the transaction so far as the purchaser is concerned and also protect the purchaser's successors in title—but, of course, without absolving the local authority from the need to get consent. I hope this meets the point the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this Amendment and Amendment Nos. 16, 17 and 18 might be considered together. They are really drafting Amendments for the Scottish provisions in consequence of the English Amendments which have already been made. 15 Their purpose is to ensure that the effect of the Bill, in both its Scottish and English applications, will be the same. They do not introduce any new Scottish point. Again with your Lordships' approval, I shall take Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Clause 26, page 37, line 9, leave out from ("Scotland") to ("Subsection") in line 47 and insert—
'(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, section one hundred and sixty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which makes provision as to price and other matters relating to the disposal of land by local authorities) shall apply to any disposal of land by an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies in the exercise of a power in relation to which subsection (1) of this section has effect (not being a power under Part VIII of the said Act of 1947) as it applies to the like disposal of land by a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1947 in the exercise of any power under the said Part VIII.
(5)'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§
Page 38, line 27, at end insert ("or
(d) to any local enactment in so far as it provides (in whatsoever terms) that, except with the consent of a Minister specified therein, land shall not be disposed of there under for a rent, price, feu duty or other consideration of a value less than the current market value thereof'")
§
Page 38, line 27, at end insert ("and
(d) for any reference in subsection (6) to paragraph (e) of subsection (5) of this section there shall be substituted a reference to paragraph (d) of that subsection.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this Amendment arises out of the same matter—the protection of persons deriving a title under transactions requiring consent, and contains a Scottish provision. I do not think I need add anything further. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
§ Protection of persons deriving title under transactions requiring consent
§ ("(1) Where after the commencement of this Act an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies purport to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land under an enactment whereby power to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land is conferred on that authority, or on a class of authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies, then—
- (a) in favour of any person claiming under the authority, the acquisition, appropriation or disposal so purporting to be made shall not be invalid by reason that any consent of a Minister which (whether by virtue of this Part of this Act or otherwise) is required thereto has not been given, and
- (b) a person dealing with the authority, or with a person claiming under the authority, shall not be concerned to see or inquire whether any such consent has been given.
§ (2) In relation to Scotland the preceding subsection shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of subsection (2) of section one hundred and sixty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, in so far as those provisions relate to the consent of a Minister, but without prejudice to the operation of those provisions in cases to which the preceding subsection does not apply.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 30 [Proceedings for challenging validity of certain orders and decisions]:
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 46, line 34, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (2)")
§ Page 46, line 35, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").—(Lord Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 34 [Provisions as to purchase notices]:
§ 3.10 p.m.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and to insert instead:
("() In its application to purchase notices served after the commencement of this Act, the said section nineteen shall have effect as if, after subsection (5) of that section, there were added the following subsections:—
'(6) In the last foregoing subsection, any reference to the taking of action in lieu of confirming a purchase notice includes a reference to the taking of a decision not to
17
confirm the notice on the grounds that any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section are not fulfilled.
(7) Where the Minister has given notice under subsection (5) of this section of his proposed action, and any of the persons, authorities and statutory undertakers concerned have appeared before and been heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and it then appears to the Minister to be expedient to take action under this section otherwise than in accordance with the notice given by him, the Minister may take that action accordingly.'")
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment goes with a number of others: Nos. 24, 67, 68, 95, 96, 100, 107 and 108. It will be to everyone's convenience to be able to refer in one place, so far as possible, to the revised purchase provisions, and the new Schedule which will come in at page 111, line 36, therefore reproduces in full Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act., 1947, as verbally amended by Clause 34 and the Eighth Schedule. The words in the new Schedule, which your Lordships will find in heavy type at page 33 and subsequent pages of the Marshalled List, are the verbal Amendments added by the Bill. Clause 34, subsections (1) and (2), are already drafted in the form of verbal Amendments to be added to Section 19. The Amendment at page 51, line 20, redrafts the present subsections (3) and (4) so that they too can now as verbal Amendments be similarly added to Section 19, and the Amendment at page 77, line 40, enacts with the same purpose.
§ The other Amendments that I mentioned, Nos. 107 and 108, are purely drafting Amendments, consequential on the addition to Section 19 of the verbal Amendments being made to that section by this Bill. Another four Amendments deal with the Scottish application. This is really a rather large drafting operation, but I hope that, from what I have said, your Lordships will think that it succeeds in its purpose of clarification, and I hope that the method we have taken of reprinting with the alterations in heavy type has been of value to those of your Lordships who have been studying the matter. I beg to move the first Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 20, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILK1NMy Lords, I have no complaints about these Amendments as such; no doubt they improve the Bill. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount in what way the verbal Amendments to Section 19 of the 1947 Act are necessary. Do they add anything or subtract anything from what has become the recognised procedure under Section 19, and is it really necessary to make these alterations?
Secondly, I should like to enter a mild protest about the enormous revisions that have been made in this Bill as we have gone along. It is virtually an entirely different Bill from the Bill either as it was originally introduced into another place or even as it came here in the first instance. I think there were about the same number of Amendments on the Committee stage, possibly more, and now there are III Amendments on the Report stage. Let me say at once that neither noble Lords opposite nor myself are responsible for anything like the majority of them. I have not counted, but I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is responsible for one or two; I think I am responsible for one or two. At any rate, there are 100 or so Amendments being made on the Report stage.
I will give the noble and learned Viscount the present that some of these Amendments are made to carry out undertakings which were given on the Committee stage, but it still leaves a vast number of Amendments which have been made to this Bill which are not the result of any representation from either side of the House. It almost looks as if this Bill is being drafted as we go along, rather than a Bill being presented to us which we have to consider. Even as late as this morning we received a Revised Marshalled List of Amendments, and some of us who have spent time in going through the original Amendments have found when we woke up this morning we almost had to do it again. I am glad to say I was not one of them because, I was far away from studying these Amendments over the week end, but that is not the case with some noble Lords.
I am not blaming the noble and learned Viscount; I know he has nothing to do with the drafting of these Amendments. But it does make it very difficult for noble Lords who are trying 19 to do their job to keep up with these vast numbers of Amendments as we go along. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount has any explanation of it—whether this is the kind of thing we have to expect as the normal method of legislation. It makes it difficult for most of us to carry out our duty.
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, I should like to add my comments to those that have been made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. Properly or otherwise, I spent most of yesterday considering the Marshalled List of Amendments. When I reached my office this morning I found there was another one, which I have not had time to glance at. It seems to me this is almost a case where there are 300 Amendments chasing a Bill. What is happening is, of course, that we are re-writing this Bill as we go along. My noble friend Lord Silkin suggested that we were, in fact, drafting it as we go along. That is not the first time in connection with town and country planning that has happened. I well remember the gestation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. I believe that the noble and learned Viscount was associated with it. So was my noble friend Lord Silkin, and I was myself. Actually, the Bill was drafted, as it were, clause by clause; we used to receive clauses at County Hall by messenger, one after another, and having considered one clause and approved it we learned that another was on the way. It makes it very difficult for us who have to do other things as well in the service of this House to keep up with the situation which is created by the procedure which has been followed.
On the Amendment itself, I should like the noble and learned Viscount if he can to give an assurance that these formidable Amendments—I think it was almost an understatement to say that they were complicated; they are more than complicated—complicated though they may be, will not in any way cast additional obligations upon local authorities or derogate from the powers which the local authorities otherwise have.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, perhaps I might deal first with a minor but none the less important worry 20 of both noble Lords about the new Marshalled List. I am told (and I have broadly checked it, though not completely) that the only difference between the Marshalled List which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, had yesterday and the one he has today is the two Amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Goschen.
§ LORD LATHAMIt would have been a comfort if we could have been told that—if there had been a slip attached to the new Marshalled List stating that the only difference is these two Amendments.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI will certainly consider that, if I may. I have no right—no Minister has any right—ever to ask for sympathy at all; but I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Latham. He says that he spent a great part of yesterday dealing with these Amendments. May I tell him—it may be some slight consolation—that I spent the whole of yesterday dealing with these Amendments and also with 91 others which are to come before your Lordships on the Committee stage of the Mental Health Bill. So he has a fellow-sufferer.
§ LORD LATHAMI think that the Mental Health Bill is rather appropriate to the circumstance.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOROn the question which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me, the reason for the new parts of Section 19 is that subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 34 are replaced in position without making any change in the substance; and the change is necessary simply in order to introduce the new Schedule setting out Section 19 as amended. I think he will agree that it is convenient to have the changes made in Section 19 set out in the way that I have said. The necessity for making the Amendments is, of course, the new provisions of this Bill. If the noble Lord will have a look through the provisions in heavy type he will see that they are necessary in order to make Section 19 of his own Act (if I may use that phrase) fit the position under this Bill.
On the general question I have the greatest sympathy with what both noble Lords have said. Of course, one of the main differences that have been made in 21 the Bill between the Committee stage and now is that we have brought together, in the new Part IV of the Bill, the provisions as to the obligation to purchase interests of owner-occupiers affected by planning proposal. Your Lordships may remember that in the last print of the Bill the planning provisions were contained in Clauses 37 and 38 and in the fifth and sixth Schedules. These are replaced by five new clauses making the new Part IV, which will now deal only with the right provisions, and one new Schedule, though certain consequential Amendments are required to Clauses 39, 47 and 52. This proposal elicited a great deal of interest from noble Lords in all quarters when the Bill came before the House, and I think your Lordships will agree that I paid great attention to everything that was said; indeed, after a most interesting discussion on the second day of the Committee stage there was a great deal of agreement from all parts of the House as to how this should be worked out. Having obtained that assistance from your Lordships, we thought that we would do our utmost to produce a comprehensible Bill by putting the whole matter together. That is the reason for the change of form. As your Lordships were good enough to say, there are a number of provisions—not a great number but a certain number—which are meeting the points that were raised.
The other great difficulty in a technical Bill (and I think your Lordships will appreciate this) is that as the Bill goes on its course, naturally those affected in various parts of the country—it affects not only owners or tenants or local authorities but also members of professional bodies who are concerned with the matter—come forward with proposals; and we are always ready to look at them and try to improve the Bill. It is an interesting underlining of the importance of your Lordships' House. This is not controversial at all, because I am not going into the political effect of your Lordships' House but simply the working effect of your Lordships' House as a Second Chamber. Even if the Civil Service of this country was geared to get a Bill in perfect form through one Chamber, which it is not, I do not believe that it would be possible to do it without this additional con- 22 sideration, because of all the new matter and new ideas and suggestions which come forward after the Bill has had two stages of close discussion in one House.
Therefore, it is a slight consolation to your Lordships that your Lordships have to work as hard as your Lordships do in June and July, that we are, in my view—this is entirely non-Party, because everyone helps—making great improvements in the Bill. I am not going to say that it is not a difficult task. I am sorry that it is so difficult. I can only express my personal gratitude to your Lordships that from all parts of the House I have had so much help with regard to a difficult Bill. I have tried to write and explain to noble Lords who had raised various points why changes have been made. In fact some noble Lords must be getting thoroughly tired of the long and elaborate letters that they have had from me on the matter. But that is the position, and I think the major consolation which your Lordships have is that at the end of the day it will be a much better Bill. I am very sorry for the additional work that your Lordships have had.
§ LORD LATHAMWould the noble and learned Viscount give me the assurance for which I asked with regard to the position of the local authorities?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes. To the best of my knowledge the position is as the noble Lord, Lord Latham would like it to be. If again I have spoken too generally, I will write to him; but I have no reason to suppose that I have.
§ LORD LATHAMWith regard to the latter comments of the noble and learned Viscount, we must remember that this Bill was introduced for one single purpose—namely, to put an end to the double price system. I will not say that there is a danger of its becoming, but it is well on the way to becoming, a major town and country planning measure.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, if your Lordships will bear with me again, the trouble about Amendments is that once Amendments come on to the Order Paper they begin to breed; and that is the trouble we are facing, because one Amendment requires that another comes into existence. On the major point 23 I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, mea maxima culpa, and I ask his forgiveness.
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords, it seems to me that we need some measure of family planning.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I do not think it is necessary to go into Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 and I would suggest that I should be allowed to move these together. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 52, line 13, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("inserted").
§ Page 52, line 14, after ("authority") insert ("as if, in the said subsection (1A), for any reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State").
§ Page 52, line 17, at end insert ("and subsection (3) of this section shall have effect as if, in the subsection (7) inserted thereby, for any reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 35 [Publication of notice of applications for planning permission]:
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, perhaps I might speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. They are both technical Amendments. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 18, after ("application") insert ("made after the commencement of this Act").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 53, line 1, leave out ("an application for planning permission") and insert ("any such application for planning permission as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 30 are consequential Amendments dealing with Scotland. With your Lordships' permission I will move those three Amendments together.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 53, line 9, after ("1947") insert ("or made to the Minister in pursuance of regulations made under subsection (3) of section 24 thirty-five of that Act (which relates to applications for planning permission by local planning authorities)").
§ Page 53, line 12, leave out from ("for") to first ("of") in line 13 and insert ("references to sections fifteen and thirty-five").
§ Page 53, line 14, leave out ("a reference to section thirteen") and insert ("references respectively to sections thirteen and thirty-two").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 53, line 11, at end insert—
("() Any reference in this section to the local planning authority includes a reference to any local authority to whom any of the functions of the local planning authority under Part III of the Act of 1947 have been delegated").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this is a Scottish Amendment, and like a former Amendment it disapplies to Scotland a provision in the Bill concerned with the delegation of planning powers. There are no powers in the Scottish Statutes for the delegation of planning functions such as the English Statutes contain; and this gets rid of that effect in the Amendment which was proposed at page 53, line 11. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 14, at end insert ("and subsection (6) shall be omitted").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 36 [Notification of applications for planning permission to owners and agricultural tenants]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the new procedure in Clause 36 relates only to applications for planning permission made after the commencement of the Act. Clause 36 requires such applications to be accompanied by a certificate saying that the applicant either is the owner of the land concerned or has taken the prescribed steps to inform the owner of the application for planning permission, and that he has notified any agricultural tenant. It also obliges the planning authority to take into account representations made by such an owner or tenant and to inform them of the decision on the application. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 17, after ("permission") insert ("made after the commencement of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.36 p.m.
§
LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (b):
and if any such person gives notice to the local planning authority within fourteen days from the latest of the dates of service referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection that he desires to appear personally before the local planning authority or to be represented in support of such representations the local planning authority shall afford him an opportunity of doing so before determining the application.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33. Clause 36 is the clause which for the first time makes a requirement that the person who submits a planning application in respect of land or buildings in which he has no interest must notify the owner of the land. As the law now stands, anybody can make an application in respect of any land he likes, whether or not he has an interest. The local planning authority are obliged to consider it and give a decision; and the owner need know nothing at all about this application until after the decision has been given. Even then there is no provision for notifying the owner.
§ An application by an outside person and a decision in respect of land may be very prejudicial to the owner, whether the application is granted or refused. For instance, a person may apply for planning permission in respect of a private house, to convert it into a block of flats, or for office user, and he may be refused. That prejudices the owner in case he wants to put up an application. I know that in theory the owner can himself afterwards make an application, and the local planning authority would consider his application on its merits; but the fact that there has been a similar application by somebody else, which has been considered and refused, is bound, in practice, to prejudice the owner. Similarly, if an application is granted it may be something which the owner has no intention of doing and no desire to do; and that does prejudice the owner.
§ In addition to what is actually in the Bill, the owner is now to receive notice of this application and to have the opportunity of seeing what it is all about and 26 to make representations. On the Committee stage I suggested that if the owner was dissatisfied with the decision he should have a right of appeal. That seemed to me very reasonable. The noble and learned Viscount having undertaken to examine the matter, I withdrew the Amendment, but he later informed me that he did not agree. I do not wish to re-argue that matter, although I still feel that that would have been the better course. My present Amendment is directed to giving the owner of the land an opportunity of being heard, apart from making representations.
§ I know that that is a new principle in planning applications, and that it is something quite new that an owner of land should be heard by the local planning authority; for normally he makes his application, which is considered, and he gets the result and then has a right of appeal. But I would ask the House to bear in mind that in this case the owner, who as I have said may be gravely prejudiced in one way or another, has no right of appeal; and it seems to me that if he is not to have a right of appeal he ought at least to have a right to be heard on an application made by somebody else. There may be cases where he will agree with the application and in such circumstances perhaps he will not particularly desire to be heard. But where he objects to the application, surely it seems only fair that he should be heard on it before the decision is given. That is the purpose of my Amendment. As I have said, I would have preferred that the owner should have a right of appeal. But if that is not to be so, then I think the next best thing—and I am sure it is workable—is that the owner should have the right to be heard by the local planning committee if he so desires before the application is decided. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I have great sympathy with everything the noble Lord has said. It occurs to me that there are several reasons for making this Amendment. One is that a man may be a proprietor of land in a small borough or village, and may be under express covenants to keep a certain character in that township or village; and it may 27 happen that someone will go behind his back to the local planning authority, which may be situated 50 or 100 miles away and have very little interest in that particular village or township as compared with the whole of the area under its consideration. That might prejudice not only the proprietor himself but even the continued development of a township or village along lines to which the whole of the inhabitants more or less agree.
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, I have no particular objection to the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has proposed, but it seems to me that in practice it would be a little difficult to confine these personal appearances to the owners. I appreciate the reason why the noble Lord has singled them out for this particular treatment, but I feel there would be a tendency for the meetings to be of a rather different nature than they are. I feel that on practical grounds the proposal should comply to serious examination before it is adopted.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am sorry that I could not accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I think it is important to consider that we are really dealing here with quite a narrow difference, because the Bill already makes it necessary for the planning authority to take into account the representations made by the owner and we are really considering whether there should be a right of the owner to a hearing. On the Committee stage I dealt with the point of principle and I do not want to drive that too far; but it is important, I think, to remember that the planning authority have the duty of regarding the matter from the point of view of public interest and not to decide a dispute between the owner and the applicant. The other point which I am told raises a considerable difficulty is this. The machinery of planning control is already complicated; that is inevitable. It often takes a great deal of time and effort by many people before a decision can be arrived at. Therefore, it would be very undesirable to add a further stage in the procedure unless it was clearly necessary. As my noble friend Lord Gage suggested, if this right were given to the owner it would hardly be possible to avoid giving a similar right 28 to the applicant, or at least to allow him to appear at the owner's hearing; and that would complicate the procedure still further.
If, on the other hand, there were any real danger of the position that my noble friend Lord Saltoun had in mind I should be very disturbed. But I started by saying to your Lordships that this is a case where the planning authority must take into account the representations made by the owner, and of course there is no reason why a local planning authority should not agree to give an owner a hearing if he asks for it; and if his representations have so important a bearing on the case it may well be right for them to do so. They would immediately get into what I might call my noble friend Lord Gage's trouble, in that it would be obviously not only the demands but the rights of natural justice for the applicant to be heard and to know what was going on. But that could be done by the local planning authority voluntarily if they wanted to do so; and so I would suggest that the point to underline to your Lordships is the one I have already made to-day about the complicated nature of the machinery of planning control. I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment to-day and I will certainly have another look to see whether one can improve the administrative side of it; but I think it would be unfortunate to add another statutory complication to this procedure.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, one can always simplify procedure by eliminating certain steps. One can simplify it by not giving the right of representation. In this case we simplify the procedure by giving the person who has no interest in the land a right of appeal, but the person with an interest has no right in respect of a decision in which he has had no say except to make written representations. However, the noble and learned Viscount is fully acquainted with the point by now, and if he says he will see what can be done to meet it in some way, even administratively. I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment and await the final stage of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
29
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 5, after ("1947") insert ("or is made to the Minister in pursuance of regulations made under subsection (3) of section thirty-five of that Act").—(Earl Bathurst.)
]
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 38 which I shall move in a few moments. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 10, leave out ("is made to") and insert ("falls to be determined by").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN moved, in subsection (8), to
leave out "ten" and insert "sixty" [years].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry that I should be the one to cause a whole new Marshalled List to be printed. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak on Amendments 36 and 37 together. The purpose of these Amendments is to limit the application of Clause 36 in respect of the declaration of ownership and to extend it in another important respect. As the clause stands, the effect would be to require intending third party applicants for planning permission to give notice of their intention to the freeholder and to leaseholders with leases having at least ten years to run. My Amendment suggests that the requirement should be limited, so far as non-occupying leaseholders are concerned, to those having leases with not less than 60 years to run. The reason is that, with the ten years' provision, the developer may have a very large number of people on one large property, or even on a small property, with whom he may have to deal, and who, at this early stage, can say that they are going to stand out. They may thereby arrest the development, which would probably be a perfectly genuine development; and this will not be to the general interest.
§ As to my second Amendment, which can be taken together with the first, its purpose is to ensure that occupying leaseholders with leases of not less than three years to run are given notice. This is not in the Bill at the moment. The whole purpose of these two Amendments, really, is to facilitate the obtaining of planning permission by reducing the 30 numbers of people to whom notice has to be given, and yet make certain that the occupier does get notice of what is contemplated in respect of his premises. I think a distinction must be made between those who trade on the property and those who hold purely an investment interest. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 28, leave out ("ten") and insert ("sixty").—(Viscount Goschen.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this Amendment, linked with the one in the next line, has the effect of altering the definition of "owner"—that is, the classes of owner in the popular sense—who are to be notified under the clause by applicants for planning permission. As the clause stands, "owner" means a freeholder or a tenant with an unexpired term of not less than ten years, and my noble friend's Amendment would narrow this by excluding tenants with terms between ten and sixty years. We have considered the anxiety of the Multiple Shops Federation, who have been supporting this Amendment, but I think it is important that your Lordships should have in mind the history of the matter. As originally introduced, the clause covered all tenants with an interest of three years or more, whether in occupation or not. It was widely felt that this placed too heavy a burden on the applicant, particularly in the case of a large scheme involving land in multiple ownerships, and therefore the figure of three years was amended to ten in the Committee stage in another place. This was a compromise figure, which lightened the burden on applicants while still preserving the rights of tenants with a substantial interest. A further limitation by excluding tenants with terms of less than sixty years, as my noble friend proposes, would, I think, go too far. I do not see how you can really say that a tenant with a forty or fifty year term, or even one of fifteen or twenty years, will not be vitally affected by a development proposal. If I may say this, in anticipation of my noble friend, I find that the distinction in favour of tenants in occupation made by the second Amendment seems hard to justify.
There is only one other point that I should like my noble friend to have in 31 mind, simply to show that I have considered it. Under the clause, agricultural tenants are given a right to be notified; but I do not think that the cases between agricultural tenants and business or residential occupiers should be driven too far. They are not really parallel. Agricultural tenants are given special treatment because a planning permission for development may automatically deprive them of their security of tenure. This I do not think applies to other forms of tenants. My noble friend Lord Goschen has, if he will allow me to say so, moved the Amendment with great skill and restraint, but I hope he will not press it, for the reasons that I have given.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENI should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 3.57 p.m.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend. Clause 36, like Clause 35, is at present drafted in terms of applications for planning permission entertained and determined by the local planning authority—that is, in a county, the county council. This Amendment, which is similar to Amendment No. 28, which I have already moved, extends the clause to cover applications dealt with by county district councils under delegated powers. Amendment No. 35, the one which I have already moved, is an Amendment consequential upon this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 30, at end insert ("and any reference to the local planning authority includes a reference to any local authority to whom any of the functions of the local planning authority under Part III of the Act of 1947 have been delegated").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, with your Lordships' leave, this Amendment and Amendment No. 40 could be taken together. They are consequential on Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 55, line 32, leave out ("and sixteen") and insert ("sixteen and thirty-five")
32§ Page 55, line 33, leave out ("and fourteen") and insert ("fourteen and thirty-two").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL BATHURSTMy Lords, this Amendment, again, is a drafting Amendment, consequential upon Amendment No. 31, which has already been moved by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 55, line 41, leave out ("notwithstanding anything in subsection (8)") and insert ("for subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsection, that is to say,—
'(8) In this section").—(Earl Bathurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 36 to insert the following new clause:
§ Enforcement of limitations imposed by development orders
§ ("(1) Where by a development order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) permission is granted for any development subject to limitations specified in the order, sections twenty-three and twenty-four of the Act of 1947 (which relate to the enforcement of plannning control) shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have effect in relation to any non-compliance with those limitations as they have effect in relation to non-compliance with any conditions subject to which permission is granted for any development.
§ (2) For the purposes of this section and of the Act of 1947, any provision of a development order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) whereby permission is granted for the use of land for any purpose on a limited number of days in a period specified in that provision shall (without prejudice to the generality of references to limitations in this section or in that Act) he taken to be a provision granting permission for the use of land for any purpose subject to the limitation that the land shall not be used for any one purpose in pursuance of that permission on more than that number of days in that period.
§ (3) Where, in the case of any development which has been carried out before the commencement of this Act,—
- (a) permission for that development was granted by a development order subject to a limitation (whether by virtue of such a provision as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection or otherwise) and
- (b) a notice purporting to be an enforcement notice under section twenty-three of the Act of 1947 has been served before the commencement of this Act, alleging that the development was carried out without planning permission, and the steps required by that notice to be taken have not been taken before the commencement of this Act,
33 the service (after the commencement of this Act) of an enforcement notice in respect of non-compliance with that limitation, notwithstanding that it is served more than four years after the date of the alleged failure to comply therewith, shall not be treated as out of time if the notice is served at any time before the first anniversary of the commencement of this Act.
§ (4) The validity of a notice purporting to be an enforcement notice under the said section twenty-three (whether served before or after the commencement of this Act) shall not depend on whether any non-compliance to which the notice relates was a non-compliance with conditions, or with limitations, or with both; and any reference in such a notice to non-compliance with conditions or limitations (whether both expressions are used in the notice or only one of them) shall be construed as a reference to non-compliance with conditions, or with limitations, or both with conditions and limitations, as the case may require.
§ (5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Act of 1947 and to sections twenty-three and twenty-four of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947 and sections 'twenty-one and twenty-two of that Act; and, in subsection (3), for the words 'four years after the date of the alleged failure to comply therewith' there shall be substituted the words 'two years after it has come to the knowledge of the local planning authority that the limitation has not been complied with'.")
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause, which is contained in Amendment No. 42, with the Amendments to the Title of the Bill and the consequential Amendments to the Eighth Schedule, is a consequence of the recent decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Cater v. Essex County Council. That decision, which was reported in The Times on April 15, and in 1959 2 Weekly Law Reports 739, was likely to have such serious effects on the enforcement powers of local planning authorities, and indeed on the efficacy of planning control over uses of land in general, that the Government considered it imperative to make provision in this Bill, even at this late stage, to rectify the position.
§ The case came before the Court in a rather curious way. It arose as a result of an enforcement notice served by the local planning authority in respect of a caravan site. The notice stated, in accordance with Section 23 of the 1947 Act, that the development—that is, the use of the land as a caravan site—had been carried out without permission. The Court held that the enforcement notice was invalid in view 34 of the general permission given by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1950, for temporary uses of land. Class IV (2) of the Order relates to uses of land which are carried on for not more than twenty-eight days in any one year, the purpose being to dispense with the need for specific permission for purely temporary uses of land, as in the case, for example, of the holiday-maker who is moving from place to place while touring with a caravan. Although the caravan site in the Cater case had been established for considerably longer than twenty-eight days, the Court pointed out that when the use started it was within the 28-day permission given by the General Development Order and held that it could never thereafter be said that it had been carried out without permission. The enforcement proceedings were therefore invalid.
§ It would ill become me to criticise the decision of the Court. I am not doing so. I am only pointing out to your Lordships, in case it should occur to any noble Lord, that there is no appeal from the Divisional Court, so it is impossible to take it further. The decision affects not only caravan sites, but almost every kind of change of use of land. It means that a change of use extending beyond the twenty-eight days specified in the General Development Order, whether in the past or in the future, can be carried out with impunity. The local authority can never serve a valid enforcement notice under Section 23 of the 1947 on the basis that development has been carried out without permission. We have considered the matter and we have all come to the conclusion that the trouble is too deep-seated to be put right merely by amending the General Development Order, and the Judges who decided the case themselves recognised that legislation was required.
§ If I may summarise the new clause, I would say that under Section 23 of the 1947 Act, the enforcement notice served by the local planning authority must state either that the development has been carried out without planning permission or that a condition attached to the grant of permission has not been complied with. The first purpose of the new clause, which is effected by subsection (1), is to make it clear that where permission is granted by a development order subject to limitations, the local 35 planning authority may serve an enforcement notice in respect of non-compliance with these limitations in the same way as for non-compliance with any conditions attached to a permission. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the limit of twenty-eight days in Class IV of the General Development Order, or any similar limit in a development order, is a limitation for this purpose.
§ Subsection (3) deals with the case where development has already occurred. Subsection (4) deals with the point that where a local planning authority wish to take enforcement proceedings for noncompliance, there may be some doubt whether the alleged contravention is, strictly speaking, a contravention of a condition or a contravention of a limitation. The subsection makes it clear that the validity of an enforcement notice is not affected by any such doubt. These troubles affect the best of legislation and I ask your Lordships to allow us to put it right. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 36, insert the said new clause,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, this is a very important Amendment, as the noble and learned Viscount has explained. It puts right a difficulty in which local authorities have found themselves since the decision in the case the noble and learned Viscount quoted. It is true that in a large number of cases they have found it impossible to take enforcement proceedings where there had been a blatant breach of the law. I have considerable sympathy with caravanners and their desire to find good spots where they can pitch, but I am bound to say that I have no sympathy with their doing so in breach of the law, and even in defiance of the law—nor, may I say, have the caravan organisations themselves. So I am glad that the law is being altered to make enforcement proceedings possible in these blatant cases.
VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, I am sure that planning authorities will endorse what the noble Lord has just said and will be grateful for this new clause.
LORD HYLTONMy Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the Government for putting this new clause in the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to express my gratitude for the reception of this new clause.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.8 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORhad given Notice of a group of Amendments involving the omission of Clauses 37 and 38 and the insertion of five new clauses. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment to omit Clause 37 is the first of two which pave the way for the new clauses which deal with planning blight. I think it may be most convenient if, on this Amendment, I give your Lordships a general sketch of the procedure. As I said a few moments ago, in the last printed Bill the planning blight provisions were contained in Clauses 37 and 38, one of which I am now moving to leave out, and in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. These are replaced by the five clauses making the new Part IV of the Bill, which now deals only with the blight provisions, and by one new Schedule. There are consequential provisions in Clauses 39, 47 and 52 and in the Second Schedule. The blight provisions are thus in a completely rearranged form, which is noticeably shorter. No important changes have been introduced, but the opportunity has been taken of putting right a number of minor defects. Those of any substance I shall point out in a moment.
The last print of the Bill dealt with resident owner-occupiers in Clause 37 (with the Fifth Schedule), and with other owner-occupiers in Clause 38 (with the Sixth Schedule): this involved a good deal of repetition, especially as regards procedure. Further, that version relegated to the Schedules provisions of real substance more proper for the main body of the Bill—such as the grounds on which an acquiring authority can serve a counter-notice. The new version, I hope your Lordships agree, sets out the procedure in the right order. The first new clause defines "blighted land", sets out the grounds on which a person can serve a notice on an acquiring authority requiring them to purchase such land, and says what interests in land qualify for protection under the provisions. The second new clause sets out the grounds on which an acquiring authority can serve 37 a counter-notice objecting to a notice served on them. The third new clause deals with subsequent procedure in relation to cases where an objection by the acquiring authority is referred to the Lands Tribunal for their decision. The fourth new clause sets out what happens as a result of a decision by the Lands Tribunal and also what happens in cases where, because an acquiring authority have not made an objection or have withdrawn it, the Lands Tribunal are not brought in. The fifth new clause contains definitions.
The one new Schedule, which appears as Amendment No. 91, deals first with questions which may arise on the definitions set out in the fifth new clause—namely "the appropriate authority", "the appropriate enactment", "hereditament" and "annual value". It contains also provisions as to compensation, limiting the occasions on which severance compensation is payable and excluding altogether compensation for disturbance. It regulates the right of withdrawal of a notice and the effect of a counter-notice on the grounds that the land in question is not required. Finally, it deals in the supplementary and general provisions with the consequences of a claimant's death.
I promised your Lordships that I would mention any changes of any substance that have been introduced. They appear to be as follows. The new clause, Amendment No. 48, in subsection (1) (b), fills a gap in the procedure by providing for the case in which the objection is withdrawn. Also, that new clause, by subsection (3) (a), provides for the case where a claimant is willing to accept the acquiring authority's proposal to acquire only part of the affected area. In such a case, where both sides are in agreement, there is no need for the Lands Tribunal to be brought in.
Perhaps your Lordships, in order to get the complete picture, will now turn to the new Schedule (Amendment No. 91), which, by paragraph 1 (1), provides that the Minister of Transport shall decide who is the appropriate authority where land is shown simply for highway purposes and could be intended for, say, a trunk road or a classified or unclassified road: the appropriate authority will depend on what sort of road it is to be. Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 2 deal with the case where land is shown 38 as for a trunk road or special road but the requisite trunk road scheme or special road order has not yet been made. Where there is no such scheme or order, there would, but for the reference to "relevant conditions", be no appropriate enactment under which the acquiring authority could proceed to acquire the land blighted. If your Lordships will turn back to Amendment No. 46, you will see that in subsection (4) of that new clause there is contained a general definition of "relevant powers" which is much more compact than that on page 94 of the last print which was spelt out by reference to the various categories of blighted land.
I do not know of any other changes of substance. I thought it would be useful for your Lordships to have an outline account of the scheme. I suggest, if it commends itself to your Lordships, that we have our discussion on Amendments No. 43 to 49 inclusive, as they cover the whole matter; and, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move those Amendments.
§
Amendments moved—
Leave out Clause 37;
Leave out Clause 38;
After Clause 38 insert the following new Clause—