TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

HL Deb 29 July 1968 vol 296 cc45-131

4.40 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 [Publicity in connection with preparation of structure plan]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 14, leave out ("will in their opinion") and insert ("may be appropriate to").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 is linked with this. It might perhaps be a saving of time if the Government were willing that the four Government Amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, were discussed at the same time, because I fancy that one of the purposes underlying them may be to meet the point raised by my Amendment. I brought up the same point in Committee.

What I pointed out was that subsection (1) of Clause 3 requires a local planning authority to take such steps as "will in their opinion" secure certain results. Subsection (4) deals with what happens if the Minister is satisfied that the authority have adequately complied with subsection (1). It seemed to me that so long as all the local authority had to do was to take such steps as would in their opinion secure certain results it would be really impossible for them to fail under the test in subsection (4). That is the purpose of my Amendment. I suspect that the Government accept my idea but have in mind a better way of doing it. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sug- gestion that we take his two Amendments with the four Government Amendments to the same passage My right honourable friend is advised that even with this new wording there would still be the possibility of challenge in the courts on the adequacy of what has been done. It is clearly undesirable that a structure plan, or indeed a local plan, should be at risk of invalidation at the bitter end, following challenge in the courts on the ground that the publicity given to items proposed in the plan was not adequate. If there are inadequacies in the publicity they should be corrected at a far earlier stage, and certainly before the formal public inquiry is held.

It is in order to achieve the purpose which I think I share with the noble Lord, without admitting the risk of invalidation following challenge in the courts at the end of the day, that the Government prefer the wording in their Amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Under these Amendments the initial judgment as to what steps are necessary remains with the authority, but the Minister will have the power to consider what has been achieved and to act upon his judgment. The Minister's consideration is now directed straight at the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the subsections, and it is from his satisfaction, or otherwise, with the results of the steps taken, rather than on a consideration of the steps themselves, that his powers to require further action will flow. If the noble Lord agrees with me that the result will be achieved by the Government's Amendments without seeing it open to risk of invalidation in the courts, and if he is prepared to withdraw his Amendment, I will move my four Amendments.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for having given consideration to the point which I raised. I think that their Amendments satisfactorily meet the point, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("the") to ("he") in line 1 on page 5 and insert ('purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above had been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority in compliance with that subsection").—(Lord Kennel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out ("comply with that subsection") and insert ("achieve those purposes").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and the following Amendment together.

Amendments moved— Page 8, line 31, leave out from ("the") to ("he") in line 32 and insert ("purposes of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) above had been adequately achieved by the steps taken by the authority in compliance with that subsection"). Page 8, line 35, leave out ("comply with that subsection") and insert ("achieve those purposes").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10 [Alteration to local plans]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 7: Page 10, line 16, leave out ("repeal").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. Subsection (l) of Clause 10 says: A local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan adopted by them … In the course of the Committee stage I asked the Government what the necessity was for this word "repeal". The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in reply (OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/6/68, col. 637): if the noble Lord agrees, I will think about it and consult, and we can revert to it at a later stage". I have tabled this and the three following consequential Amendments in order that we may have the benefit of the noble Lord's thoughts. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, my thoughts centre, for example, on action areas. Some local plans for action areas will be concerned with specific development operations which will be relatively quickly completed. They will deal with lay-out and with general principles of design. In those cases it seems likely that it will be better to repeal that local plan when the development has been completed rather than to maintain it as part of the corpus of the development plan as a whole, for that could be misleading in creating an impression of development still remaining to be carried out. I think I need say no more. The idea of the repeal power is simply that when the development has been completed, the plan should go out of existence, so that nobody shall be misled by finding still in force a plan to do something when that something has in fact already been done.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having put on the record the case, or at any rate a substantial part of the case, for retaining the word "repeal". In the light of what he has said, I would no longer challenge the word and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions as to structure and local plans]:

4.48 p.m.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 11: Page 12, line 30, after ("persons") insert ("(including river authorities)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to require a local planning authority to consult with river authorities when making structure or local plans, and to ensure that regulations which the Minister was making under Clause 13 would say so. I think that river authorities have such an important part to play for local planning authorities that mention in the Bill is perhaps justified. I realise that a local planning authority has to consult many authorities when making a structure or a local plan, such as electricity, gas, transport, water undertakings, and I consider that river authorities in degree have an even greater importance than any of those.

First of all, river authorities are responsible now for the overall water supply. The water undertaking of the future is responsible for its extra water supplies coming from the river authority. The river authority has to work out conservation schemes to provide for the future. Secondly, the river authority is responsible for land drainage, which means that the river authority has specific advice to give against building in the flood plain, where the buildings may suffer from floods during high rainfall periods in the winter. Thirdly, the river authority is responsible for taking the effluent from sewage works for which the local planning authority would be responsible.

Both in regard to the first and the third of these matters there is a physical limitation. You cannot enlarge the river. There it is. This, of course, applies more and more with regard to effluent disposal. Naturally, as more water is used by everybody in their homes and by all industries in the factories, there is more effluent to be disposed of as well. The effluent from different manufacturing processes becomes more and more difficult effluent to dispose of every year, and the old standards of at least eight to one dilution of river water to effluent is becoming more and more difficult to get. If you cannot get that eight to one dilution, then you must have a higher purity of effluent. This, of course, entails big expenditure, especially if the effluent is a big one and has to be purified pretty well to river water quality. So, again, we have a factor here of really overriding importance. It is essential for the local planning authority to know at the earliest possible time just what the capacity of the local river is which will take the effluent from the development proposed. I realise it is a matter of degree, but I would think the degree of importance of the river authority is such that it would be justified to be mentioned in these regulations. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, these are the persons that the planning authority would be bound to consult by the terms of the Bill itself, and if we add "including river authorities" after "persons" I fear there would be no grounds for omitting to add a great many other public bodies. If river authorities were to appear in the clause, district councils would have to appear, Government Departments would have to appear, the Forestry Commission, and the National Parks Commission would have to appear. Certainly the Regional Planning Council would have to appear. If I advise the House against writing in "river authorities" it is solely because of an objection to writing in any of these bodies, and not because of any objection to the river authorities as such.

Of course, my right honourable friend recognises the importance of proper consultation, and, indeed, of continuous liaison and discussion between river authorities and local planning authorities. The river authorities' functions are certainly among those which it would be extreme folly in a planning authority to neglect to consult upon, when drawing up structure plans or local plans, or when fulfilling their general overall planning functions. This policy of my right honourable friend's is something he will not omit to bring out and ram home when he launches the new development plan code as a whole, after the Bill is through.

To turn to the regulations themselves (because we are dealing with the clause governing the regulations he is to make), my right honourable friend will consult with the Association of River Authorities, at the same time as with other relevant associations, on what should go into the regulations. I hope that with this assurance, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to write into the clause the river authorities, alone of all these public bodies.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his assurance, so far as it goes. I accept that it could hardly be reasonable to put "river authorities" in here. I should rather like to see them in the regulations, I am bound to say. I realise that he has offered me some concession in saying that the Minister will consult with the National Association of River Authorities in drawing up the regulations, but would the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, be good enough to go so far as to say that the river authorities would appear in the regulations as one of the bodies which should be consulted by the planning authority?

LORD KENNET

I think that is something which should be discussed between the Minister and the Association at the time the regulations are being drafted.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

I realise the noble Lord can go no further to-day, and I hope the Minister will read those wise words, and that they will carry some weight when the argument comes to take place! I thank him for going so far as he has, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.55 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 12, line 31, at end insert— ("() require a local planning authority, in such cases as may be prescribed or in such particular cases as the Minister may direct, to provide persons making a request in that behalf with copies of any plan or document which has been made public for the purpose mentioned in section 3(1)(a) or 7(1)(a) of this Act or has been made available for inspection under section 3(2) or 7(2) of this Act, subject (if the regulations so provide) to the payment of a reasonable charge therefor.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet—and I hope it does—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on Committee stage about the selling or making available of plans, so that people do not have to wait in the offices of local authorities, taking notes in longhand, or making copies which they can consider at leisure, but will be able to take home copies of the actual documents. It provides that the Minister shall be able to make regulations requiring a planning authority to sell on request any copies of any plans or documents which have been made public for the purposes of Clause 3(1) or Clause 7(1) or which have been deposited for formal inspection under Clause 3(2) or Clause 7(2). There has to be that distinction, otherwise one runs the risk of compelling local authorities to offer for sale copies of every rough sketch or draft plan which they are discussing internally before it reaches the stage of public consultation at all, and, clearly, that would be quite undesirable. The Minister will also be able to give a direction to a particular local authority which seems to be falling down on the required standard, as regards co-operation with the public on this matter, to make available for sale copies of the plans or documents specified. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, this Amendment gives me the opportunity to express appreciation to the Government for the trouble they have obviously taken to consider a number of points which were raised by the Opposition in Committee. I cannot say that we have been met in every case, but this is certainly a case where we have been met. This Amendment carries out just what I hoped to secure by another, much shorter —although I am sure less apt—Amendment which I moved in Committee. I am very happy to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 13: Page 12, line 37, at end insert— ("() require a local planning authority to maintain and make available for inspection an up-to-date register of all development plans, structure plans and action plans in preparation or in force for their area or any part thereof.")

The noble LORD said: I will try my luck on this Amendment. It is intended specifically to empower the Minister to make regulations requiring the local planing authority to maintain and make available for inspection an up-to-date register of development plans, structure plans and action plans, in preparation or in force for their area, or any part thereof. In the course of proceedings in the Committee I said (col. 639 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 18): It will be of great convenience to all concerned if it is possible somehow, somewhere, to find out with certainty what plans are in existence, what is their authority, status, state of progress, and so forth, and what other plans are in preparation though they have not yet seen the light … Will the Minister, among the many regulations he has power to make, include a regulation that will require the planning authority to publish and keep up to date a list of that sort?

The noble LORD, LORD Kennet, was good enough to say, in reply, that he would like to have time to consider that point, and that perhaps we could return to it at the next stage. We are now returning to it, and I hope that the Government's reply will be friendly and sympathetic. Whether this is done by regulations, or otherwise, I do not greatly mind. I am extremely anxious that it should be provided that professional people—and others—who want to find out what is happening about the many and varied kinds of plans that there may be for a certain area, shall be able to get that information easily, and authoritatively. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My right honourable friend thinks that local planning authorities should be obliged to maintain a register. He will be consulting with them at the stage when he is preparing regulations about how best this can be achieved. The question is, what should be on the register? There I think LORD Brooke's Amendment goes a little far in including plans in preparation.

There are three stages here. First of all, there is the first gleam of light in the planning officer's eye. He has to be allowed to write it down, but one does not want his writings or drawings at that stage to appear on any register, because they are not yet public, and there is no reason why they should be. Secondly, there is the stage of public consultation. I submit that at this stage the plan or draft, or whatever it is, need not appear on the register because it will be very fully publicised. It will be on display in another room in the town hall or county hall, and moreover it will be a little difficult to know how to describe it on the register. It has to be given some sort of formal status or index number or identification mark, which would detract from the need for informality and flexibility at the public consultation stage; and the Government are against having those things which are under public consultation appearing on the register. In the Government view, a plan should reach the register at the time when it achieves some statutory status, when it has finished being prepared and it becomes approved or adopted, or submitted to the Minister for his approval. To that extent, the register can be achieved without amending the Bill. The regulation-making power, I am advised, is quite wide enough to do that.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. I confess that when drafting this Amendment I suspected that in the words "in preparation or" I was going a little further than would be acceptable. I hope that between now and the time when action is taken careful thought can be given to this matter in consultation with the local authority associations and, I hope, with bodies like the Chartered Land Societies. It does not seem to me quite enough simply to have a register of the plans which have been submitted to the Minister or are in force.

If the register is confined to them there will be no mention of the fact that an important plan which has not yet reached either of those stages is on view, available for public inspection in another room in the town hall, and someone who did not fully know his way about this subject might be misled into thinking that the register contained, as it were, an index to all the information that was available. In fact, it would not, because certain other information which might be of great importance to the inquirer was available for inspection in another room but was not mentioned in the register which he had asked to inspect. However, I am quite prepared to leave this point so that it can be further discussed with the professional organisations and the local authority associations, because I think we all want to achieve the same kind of result, and I accept that the words "in preparation" in my Amendment are ambiguous and go somewhat too far. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 [New provision as to enforcement notices]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 14: Page 13, line 16, leave out ("20th December") and insert ("the end of").

The noble Baroness said: It might be for the convenience of the House if we considered Amendments 14 and 20 together, as these are the first of a series substituting references to the beg inning or end of the year for references to the 21st or the 20th December. At this and certain other points in the Bill it was necessary to relate provisions to the date of publication of the Bill, or to dates four years prior to that date. But it would scarcely be for the lasting convenience of practitioners and others concerned that certain provisions of the Bill should operate in this way in relation to a date two-thirds of the way through a month. These Amendments (and the others like them which occur on the Marshalled List to-day) therefore propose to make these references simply to the beginning or end of a calendar year, postponing them in each case by eleven days. In the event, these Amendments favour the individual developer, in that they give him 11 more days in which he can establish qualifications under the relevant provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, this seems to me to be tidier than the Bill as originally presented. It is quite acceptable to me and I am grateful to the Government for having conceived this idea.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.5 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 15: Page 14, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("on").

The noble LORD said: My Lords, perhaps we could discuss Amendments 15 and 16 together, because 16 is consequential on 15. Again we are reverting to a matter which was discussed on the Committee stage. Subsection (4) of Clause 15 says: An enforcement notice—

1. (a)shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and
2. (b)may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice."

In Committee I moved an Amendment to omit the second part of that and to insert or any other person having an interest in that land", because it seemed to me at that stage that "any other person having an interest in that land "ought to have the enforcement notice served on him.

The Government explained, and I accept the explanation, that my Amendment went too wide, but a little debate ensued and there appeared to be a general feeling in the Committee that the words as they stand in the Bill are unsatisfactory. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, took strong objection to this phrase in the Bill as it stands, An enforcement notice— (b) may, if the authority think fit, also be served on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in their opinion is materially affected by the notice.

That leaves it open to the authority not to think fit, and, therefore, not to serve an enforcement notice on a person who has an interest in that land and whose interest, in the opinion of the authority, is materially affected by the notice. That must be wrong. The authority should not be left with that degree of total freedom, and I am therefore proposing to leave out the words "may, if the authority think fit, also be served". If my Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, the subsection will read, and I believe that is exactly what we all want to see: An enforcement notice— shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates; and on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice. I greatly hope that these two linked Amendments will be generally acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I think it was on this Amendment in Committee—I am not quite sure—that the reply, or part of it, was that the person having the interest in the land might not be readily found, might not be easy to find. That may be true, but the owner of the land may not be easy to find. Absentee landlords who cannot be found are not at all the rarest of phenomena, and yet under paragraph (a)of this subsection the enforcement notice "shall be served on the owner". What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Perhaps the owner cannot very easily be found. It would seem to me that if a person has an interest in the land which the authority think is materially affected by the notice, then it ought to be mandatory upon the authority to serve a copy of the notice upon that person.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am convinced, and recommend the House to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 6, leave out ("their opinion") and insert ("the opinion of the authority")—.(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.10 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 17: Page 14, line 31, after ("notice") insert ("(without prejudice to their power to serve another)")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment and puts beyond doubt that a local planning authority who withdraw an enforcement notice before it takes effect are not thereby debarred from serving a fresh notice. Perhaps I may also mention that Amendment No. 23, which relates to stop notices, and Amendment No. 106, which relates to listed buildings' enforcement notices, are to the same effect. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords. this Amendment is wholly acceptable to me, but it gives me an opportunity to mention again a point which I raised in this connection in Committee. Will the owner or occupier have any means of regaining his costs if the local planning authority behave in a troublesome way by serving an enforcement notice, then withdrawing it, then under the Amendment serving it again, then perhaps withdrawing it again, and so forth? The owner or occupier may be financially affected in more ways than one. If he is carrying out development, he may think it wise to stop the development the moment the enforcement notice is served; then when the notice is withdrawn and the additional expenditure which has been placed upon him by stopping the development becomes abortive, it is not clear that he has any chance of obtaining compensation.

Although the purpose of the Amendment is unexceptionable it worsens the situation for him because there may be a series of enforcement notices served and then withdrawn. He may be put to additional expenditure through feeling that, for safety's sake, he should stop the development as soon as the enforcement notice is served. He may incur expenditure in another way be preparing himself to fight the enforcement notice and appeal against it, so that he may have incurred legal and professional fees. There is a point to be considered here, and if the Government cannot even yet give me a definite reply, I very much hope that it will be considered. It seems to me that the local authority should be both empowered and required to compensate the owner or occupier for any expense to which he is put through the authority behaving unreasonably in serving, withdrawing and, maybe, re-serving and re-withdrawing, enforcement notices.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I take it that even without the words which are proposed to be added, a local authority could withdraw an enforcement notice and serve another. There is nothing to prevent them. I take it that those words are merely an assurance that they are able to do that. Therefore, they do not in fact add anything to the terrors which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has placed before us. Of course, theoretically a local authority can act in the way he suggests. They can withdraw a notice which is perhaps technically defective and substitute another. They can go on doing this indefinitely and put the owner of the property to great inconvenience and expense, but I hardly think that that is the way in which local authorities would act. These words are merely inserted to make quite sure beyond any doubt that if they do withdraw a notice they can substitute another; but I think that they can do so without those words.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, on the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, if the notice in question is withdrawn before it gets to the Minister—that is, without any proceedings before the Minister—then no costs are redeemable. If, on the other hand, it goes forward to the Minister and thus to inquiry, and if it is enforced unreasonably to that point by the local authority, then costs may be redeemable afterwards. There is a code of practice which governs this matter. The notice itself does not stop anything; it takes effect only after a period. Therefore, the only costs about which we are talking are the costs of fighting it.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It does not go as far as I would wish, but it has put something on the Record. In any case, let me make it clear that I have no desire to do anything except support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Appeal against enforcement notice]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. This again is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 1, leave out ("alleging a breach of planning control").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, with the omission of the word "alleged" which appeared in error on the Marshalled List.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 4, after ("breach") insert ("of planning control in the notice").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 8, leave out ("21st December 1963") and insert ("the beginning of 1964").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 21: After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

Certification of established use

".—(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a use of land is established if—

1. (a)it was begun before the beginning of 1964 without planning permission in that behalf and has continued since the end of 1963; or
2. (b)it was begun before the beginning of 1964 under a planning permission in that behalf granted subject to conditions or limitations, which either have never been complied with or have not been complied with since the end of 1963; or
3. (c)it was begun after the end of 1963 as the result of a change of use not requiring planning permission and there has been since the end of 1963 no change of use requiring planning permission.

(2) Where a person having an interest in land claims that a particular use of it has become established, he may apply to the local planning authority for a certificate (in this Act referred to as an 'established use certificate') to that effect:

Provided that no such application may be made in respect of the use of land as a single dwelling-house, or of any use not subsisting at the time of the application.

(3) An established use certificate may be granted (either by the local planning authority, or under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) below, by the Minister)—

1. (a) either for the whole of the land specified in the application, or for a part of it, or
60
2. (b) in the case of an application specifying two or more uses, either for all those uses or for some one or more of them.

(4) On an application to them under this section, the local planning authority shall, if and so far as they are satisfied that the applicant's claim is made out, grant to him an established use certificate accordingly; and if and so far as they arc not so satisfied, they shall refuse the application.

(5) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for an established use certificate, then unless within such period as may be prescribed by a 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 authority give notice to the applicant of their decision on the application, then, for the purposes of section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (2) below, the application shall be deemed to be refused.

(6) Schedule (Provisions as to established use certificates) to this Act shall have effect with respect to established use certificates and applications therefor and to appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) below.

(7) An established use certificate shall, as respects any matters stated therein, be conclusive for the purposes of an appeal to the Minister against an enforcement notice served in respect of any land to which the certificate relates, but only where the notice is served after the date of the application on which the certificate was granted.

(8) If any person, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or for another person an established use certificate—

1. (a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular;—
2. (b) with intent to deceive, produces, furnishes, sends or otherwise makes use of any document which is false in a material particular; or
3. (c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both."

The noble LORD said: My Lords, I propose to consider together this new clause and the new Schedule which appears as Amendment 96. Part II of the Bill provides for the abolition of the present four-year limit on the service of enforcement notices in respect of unauthorised changes of use, except for changes to use as a single dwellinghouse. The Government recognise that in so far as the four-year rule is abolished by the Bill there may be some consequential difficulty in future, where the use of land is most directly supported by a planning permission, in establishing all the planning facts for the purposes of transactions in land. This new clause, and the one which follows together with the new Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 1, accordingly provide for the certification of uses which have become "established" in the sense that they have become immune from enforcement action by virtue of the provision in Clause 15 of the Bill that an enforcement notice may be served only in respect of a breach of planning control occurring in 1964 or subsequent years. The new provisions thus confine themselves to those uses in respect of which the four-year rule will have been abolished by the Bill. Where the four-year rule continues to confer immunity from enforcement action, as it does in relation to the carrying out of operations or a change to use as a single dwelling-house, the four-year rule must be relied on in future as it is at present. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

These are complicated matters to take in at the Report stage of the Bill in the Second House, but I think it is right that we should spell everything out in this way. I note that the clause establishes a right of appeal to the Minister if the decision of the planning authority, or its failure to reach a decision, dissatisfies the applicant and he wishes to carry his application for an established use certificate further. I agree with the Government that if this new clause and Schedule were not inserted in the Bill, practical difficulties might ensue which can be obviated by the new statutory procedure laid down here. That being so, I am very ready to advise my noble friends to approve this new clause and the Schedule.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I rise only to ask one question. We seem to be establishing a new offence, and if a person is guilty of "knowingly or recklessly" making a false statement he is liable to a fairly heavy fine. In my experience, one of the most fruitful causes of debate is in connection with caravan sites. The owner of a piece of land will assert various facts in connection with the history of a site, and will say that he has at times accommodated more caravans than the local authority thinks he is entitled to accommodate. But it is difficult to know exactly where wilful deceit begins and optimistic assessment ends. I am not absolutely certain which authority will take the man into court under this clause. Will it be the local authority or, as I imagine, the Minister after an appeal?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I cannot immediately see the answer to the noble Viscount's question. I ask him to permit me to write to him giving him the answer, unless he thinks it makes a fundamental difference to the carrying of the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.21 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 22: After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:

Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal

(".—(1) The Minister may give directions requiring applications for established use certificates to be referred to him instead of being dealt with by local planning authorities; and, on any such application being referred to him in accordance with such directions, section (Certification of established use) (4) above shall apply in relation to the Minister as it applies in relation to the local planning authority in the case of an application determined by them.

(2) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for an established use certificate and is refused, or is refused in part, the applicant may by notice under this subsection appeal to the Minister; and on any such appeal the Minister shall—

1. (a)if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is not well-founded, grant to the appellant an established use certificate accordingly or, as the case may be, modify the certificate granted by the authority on the application; and
2. (b)if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is well-founded, dismiss the appeal.

(3) On an application referred to him under subsection (1) above or on an appeal o him under subsection (2) above, the Minister may, in respect of any use of land for which an established use certificate is not granted (either by him or by the local planning authority), grant planning permission for that use or, as the case may be, for the continuance of that use without complying with some condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

(4) The decision of the Minister on an application referred to him, or on an appeal, under this section shall be final.

(5) In the case of any use of land for which the Minister has power to grant planning permission under this section, the applicant or appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for such planning permission; and any planning permission so granted shall be treated as granted on the said application.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose that we should consider together this new clause and certain Amendments to the Schedules namely, Nos. 115, 122 and 123—since they spring from subsection (5) of the new clause. This new clause provides for the call-in by the Minister of applications for established use certificates, and, more important, for appeals to the Minister against the refusal of such certificates by local planning authorities. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I appreciate now, that when speaking to the previous new clause I "jumped the gun" and by referring to appeals to the Minister was, in fact, referring forward to this new clause which had not then been moved. My remarks, therefore, were relevant to this new clause rather than to the previous one. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will agree that the two hang together, and this new clause is wholly acceptable to me.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 23: Page 17, line 38, after first ("notice") insert ("(without prejudice to their power to serve another)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment corresponds to Amendment No. 17, which the House has already accepted, but in this case the Amendment relates to stop notices. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 together, as the last two are consequential on the first. This group of Amendments puts appeals against refusals to grant established use certificates into the list of the kinds of appeal which may be delegated to inspectors for decision by means of regulations under Clause 19 of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 19, line 9, at end insert— ("() appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (2) of this Act")

Page 19, line 27, at end insert— ("() in relation to appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) of that section")

Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("above") to ("as") in line 35 and insert ("or section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (5) of this Act or paragraph 7(5) or 18(6) of the said Schedule 3.").—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am not wholly happy about this being done, but I think it would be a mistake on my part to look the gift horse of the established use certificate in the mouth. Therefore I will not pursue the matter further.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House, it might allay the noble Lord's fears if I say that my right honourable friend does not intend to do this at once. He wants to get experience of how this new system works before delegating appeals against it to inspectors.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 20 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 20, line 28, leave out from ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 29 and insert ("whichever of the following provisions are relevant, that is to say those of— the principal Act; section 16 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act; and section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967,")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts into Clause 20(3) a reference to Section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act. It thereby makes a consequential Amendment which was missed when the Bill was being discussed on Report stage in another place. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28:

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 12, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Supplementary]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 22, line 41, leave out from ("1967") to end of line 42 and insert— ("(a) if he was appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as functions of that Ministry; and (b) if he was appointed by the Secretary of State, as functions of the Welsh Office.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 24 gives the Parliamentary Commissioner jurisdiction in connection with appeals determined by inspectors who are officers of the Ministry of Housing or the Welsh Office. As drafted, however, the subsection does not cover the case where an officer of the Ministry is appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales to determine an appeal arising on Welsh Office business, or vice versa. The effect of this Amendment is to ensure that if the Secretary of State for Wales appoints a Ministry inspector to determine an appeal, the determination of that appeal is regarded as a function of the Welsh Office for the purposes of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Compulsory acquisition of land in connection with development and for other planning purposes]:

5.28 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 30: Page 23, line 19, leave out ("or assist").

The noble LORD said: My Lords, both the noble LORD, LORD Brooke of Cumnor, and I have our names to this Amendment, since if two Peers put down an identical Amendment it carries both names. We are dealing here with compulsory acquisition powers for development and for other planning purposes. As the Bill is drafted it enables the Minister to authorise acquisition, if he is satisfied that it is required in order to secure or assist the treatment as a whole by development et cetera. During our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, criticised the inclusion of the words "or assist" as constituting an extension of the powers of compulsory acquisition; and, sure enough, these very words do not appear in the corresponding power in the 1962 Act upon which the power in this Bill is based. The view of the Government was, and is, that it would be a useful extension, inflexion or articulation of the power—in other words, a useful addition to the phraseology—but that it is not something which cannot be lived without. I therefore beg to move this Amendment, on this occasion in the full confidence that it will meet with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, the explanation of the curious heading to the Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I independently tabled identical Amendments on the identical day. I am very glad indeed it worked out that way. I raised the point on Committee and indicated that this was one of my Amendments to which I attached a good deal of importance. I am the more grateful, therefore, to the Government for accepting my argument. I think that noble Lords on all sides will probably be with me when I say, as I said on the earlier occasion, that there must exist compulsory powers and, equally, that Parliament must scrupulously examine any extension of compulsory powers. This is a case where your Lordships' House has examined scrupulously a proposed extern ion of compulsory powers, and it has now been agreed by both sides that that extension should not be made. I appreciate very much the helpfulness of the Government in this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Compensation for compulsory purchase of land in clearance areas and of historic buildings]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 32.

Lord BROOKE OF CUMNOR

On a point of order, may I be allowed to move my Amendment as an Amendment to that set down by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? If not, I will just speak to the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I should prefer it if the noble Lord would move his Amendment as an Amendment to mine.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will call Amendment No. 31, after which I will call, before putting the Question, Amendment No. 32.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 31: Page 26, line 5, leave out from ("land") to ("as") in line 7 and insert ("indicated in a structure plan in force for the district in which it is situated either").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely a drafting one. I beg to move.

5.32 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 31: After ("plan") in the proposed new words to insert ("submitted to the Minister for his approval or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment as an Amendment to that just moved by the noble Lord. We are back again now to the difficult and depressing subject of blight. In Committee I moved Amendments which would have had the effect of securing that certain provisions in the 1962 Act enabling the owners to require the local authority to purchase their property because it was blighted should operate from the time when the plans were first published. That suggestion was resisted by the Government on the ground that the outcome of the plans was at that stage somewhat indefinite and the local authority might be required to purchase property which, in the end, turned out not to be within the area that was to be affected by the road or the development, or the re-development or whatever it was, and so the local authority might have that property on its hands. I do not think that would have been a financial loss to the local authority, because it has been difficult for many years past to purchase any property which had not appreciated in value by the time it was desired to sell it again. However that may be, in this Amendment I am proposing that the blight provisions should operate not quite so early as I proposed in Committee but not quite so late as the Government propose in the clause as it stands.

May I just remind your Lordships what happens here? In perhaps the simplest case, the local planning authority prepares a structure plan and publishes it, and the moment it is published blight may fall on certain properties because there is an indication in the plan that the land where that property is situated may be required for some public purpose, and the owner will therefore have difficulty in selling it except at a considerably reduced value. Next, the plan as revised by the authority, after publication and discussion, is submitted to the Minister; and finally the plan, perhaps with further modifications, is approved by the Minister and comes into force.

The Government say that it should be possible for the owner to take advantage of the blight provisions, and the requirement upon the local authority to purchase, from the time when the plan comes into force. In my Committee stage Amendment I proposed that this should operate from the time when the blight starts, which is the time when the plan is first published; but in the Amendment I am now moving I am proposing that the blight provisions should operate from the time when the plan is submitted to the Minister.

That time is very much more definite, because whereas a local authority may publish a plan for purposes of public discussion and modification in the light of that discussion, when it submits the plan to the Minister it is in effect saying, "We are prepared to go ahead on these lines". The authority has committed itself to that extent, whether or not the Minister subsequently modifies it. I therefore cannot see that my proposal would be unfair to the local authority in any way, because, as I have said, the local authority has modified its own first, published plan; it has finally settled on what it wants to submit to the Minister and has submitted it; and it seems to me that from that moment the blight settles on the land which the local authority specifically desires to see used for some public purpose or other.

The Government may argue that even at that stage it is not absolutely certain which land is going to be finally blighted, because the Minister may make modifications. I appreciate that, but time is passing all along, and I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the position of a man who owns a house and who, for good reason, wishes to move to some other part of the country. The moment the first structure plan is published saying that that land is likely to be affected, the price of his property will drop. He cannot wait for all these processes to be gone through before he sells his house; and when he sells the house, if it is blighted and if he has not yet qualified under this Bill to be able to serve a purchase notice on the local authority, then he will lose a considerable amount of the value of the house. The length of time during which he will be in that unhappy position will be materially shortened if my Amendment is accepted. It will be materially shortened and, at the same time, the area of land affected will be reduced as compared with the Amendment that I moved at the earlier stage because of the fact that the local authority has now crystallised its plan and submitted it.

My Lords, this is a very difficult subject, and I expect that every one of your Lordships who has listened to me seeking to explain it will appreciate the difficulty. But the fact of blight is most unfair to individuals. For some eight or nine years, it has been accepted that in certain classes of cases the damage to the individual is so severe that he ought to be relieved by the public authority of that loss; that the loss should be spread over the community and not borne by the individual who is unhappily hit. I am sure that the right principle is that the person so unhappily hit should be under the disadvantage for as short a time as we can make it. It is to shorten the time during which the individual may be unfairly treated that I move my Amendment to the Government Amendment. I would remind the House that the point in question here is whether the loss caused by blight over this period is to fall on the single unhappy individual or is to be spread over the community at large—bearing in mind that the development will be undoubtedly for the good of the community. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

I do not propose to follow the noble Lord fully into the merits of this matter but will merely say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the case as he described it. The point is that his Amendment goes beyond it and fundamentally changes the purpose of the clause, which is simply to tailor the existing blight provisions to meet the needs of the new development plan system. It is a fundamental principle of the existing blight legislation that it applies only to approved proposals, and not to submitted or tentative proposals which may still be subject to amendment, either by the planning authority themselves or, as in the case of the proposal before us, by the Minister. Certain representations have been made to my right honourable friend by the Greater London Council, the Chartered Land Societies and others about blight. They are being considered.

The changes in this Bill are designed only to fit the present blight arrangements into new planning circumstances and not to make fundamental changes like this. The time to make such changes —if the Government and Parliament decide that they are desirable—will be as a result of a comprehensive review of the problem of blight, the compensation payable, the purchase provisions and other related matters in the compensation code. The blight caused by submitted structure plans is one of the issues forming part of the review now in progress, but it is not the only one.

My Lords, that leaves the human question outlined so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. As the House knows, my right honourable friend intends to send a circular to local authorities all about everything under this Bill, giving advice on this and that; and in this circular he is ready to put a passage urging the authorities to treat as sympathetically as they can cases of hardship arising from blight caused by unaccepted plans. We in the Ministry know that most authorities already do this. It will be the purpose of this circular to influence all to do the same pending a fundamental review of the subject. I hope the noble Lord may agree that that is the right way to do it and that he need not press forward with his Amendment this afternoon.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I have not pierced the armour, but I feel that I have made a dent in it. I am glad that the Government are quite clearly taking this matter seriously. When the noble Lord mentioned the Greater London Council it brought vividly to my mind the representations I had, while representing in another place a London constituency, about the blight hardship caused from the moment when the plans for a motorway box in London were announced. I am quite sure that this is a matter of major importance which Parliament ought to tackle as early as possible.

I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's argument that it would not be right to make a piecemeal alteration here; but I take it from what he said that the Government are making a thoroughgoing examination of this whole question of compensation. I would only say that it will be welcomed, I think, by people of all political Parties and of none if that examination can be expedited and further legislation can be brought forward at an early date to lessen the injustice which blight causes to individuals who have done no harm at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 33: Page 26, line 13, leave out ("in which it is situated").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 34: Page 26, line 18, leave out from ("order") to end of line 25, and insert ("has been made by a local authority or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a follow-up to my Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment. This Amendment is not very happily drafted, but it is designed to indicate that I think the provisions for protection against blight ought to operate not from the time when the compulsory purchase order is confirmed by the Minister but from the time when the order is made by the local authority; because it is from that moment that the blight settles. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will he able to tell me that this question also will be included in the comprehensive reexamination of compensation and blight that is in progress. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that that is the case.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET moved Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37:

Page 26, line 20, at end insert— ("or (d) is land on which the Minister of Transport or, in Wales, the Secretary of State proposes to provide a trunk road or a special road and has given to the local planning authority written notice of his intention to provide the road, together with maps or plans sufficient to identify the proposed route of the road. () Subsection (1A) above shall not apply to land situated in a district for which a local plan is in force, where that plan—

1. (a)allocates any land in the district for the purposes of such functions as are mentioned in that paragraph; or
2. (b)defines any land in the district as the site of the proposed development for the purposes of any such functions.

() In section 139 of the principal Act (notice requiring purchase of claimant's interest on ground of planning blight) 'the relevant date'—

1. (a) in relation to land mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, means the date when the order for its compulsory purchase was confirmed or made by the Minister; and
2. (b) in relation to land mentioned in subsection (1)(d) above, means the date on which the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State gave to the local planning authority the written notice specified in that paragraph").

Page 26, line 20,leave out lines 21 to 25.

Page 26, line 36, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are drafting Amendments, I beg to move them together.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I have only a drafting point on these drafting Amendments. I find about eight lines down a reference to "subsection (1)(a)". But I cannot trace subsection (1)(a). Is it a misprint for "subsection (1)"?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, if it is, it will be rectified; if it is not, I ask the noble Lord to allow me to write to him fully later.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.47 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 38: After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:

Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice

".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect for enabling mortgagees to take advantage of the provisions of sections 138 to 151 of the principal Act (notice requiring purchase by local planning authority on grounds of planning blight).

(2) Where the whole or part of a hereditament or agricultural unit is comprised in land of any of the descriptions contained in paragraphs (b) to (f) of section 138(1) of the principal Act or paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 31(1) of this Act and a person claims that—

1. (a)that he is entitled as mortgagee (by virtue of a power which has become exercisable) to sell an interest in the hereditament or unit, giving immediate vacant possession of the land; and
2. (b)since the relevant date (within the meaning of section 139 of the principal Act) he has made reasonable endeavours to sell that interest; and
3. (c)he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if no part of the hereditament or unit were comprised in land of any of the said descriptions,

then, subject to the provisions of this section, he may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase that interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, sections 138 to 151 of the principal Act.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to an interest in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit as it applies in relation to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit:

Provided that this subsection shall not enable a person—

1. (a)if his interest as mortgagee is in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make any claim or serve any notice under this section in respect of any interest in part of the hereditament or unit; or
2. (b)if his interest as mortgagee is only in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make or serve any such notice or claim in respect of any interest in less than the entirety of that part.

(4) A notice under this section shall not be served unless one or other of the following conditions is satisfied with regard to the interest which the mortgagee claims he has the power to sell:—

1. (a)the interest could be the subject of a notice under section 139 of the principal Act served by the person entitled thereto on the date of service of the notice under this section; or
74
2. (b)the interest could have been the subject of such a notice served by that person on a date not more than six months before the date of service of the notice under this section.

(5) If any question arises which authority are the appropriate authority for the purposes of subsection (2) above, subsection (4)(b) above shall then apply with the substitution for the period of six months of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question.

(6) No notice under this section shall be served in respect of a hereditament or agricultural unit, or any part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, at a time when a notice already served under section 139 of the principal Act is outstanding with respect to the hereditament, unit or part; and no notice shall be so served under section 139 of that Act at a time when a notice already served under this section is so outstanding.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a notice served under this section or section 139 of the principal Act shall be treated as outstanding with respect to a hereditament or agricultural unit, or to part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, until—

1. (a) it is withdrawn in relation to the hereditament, unit or part; or
2. (b) an objection to the notice having been made by a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act, either—
1. (i)the period of two months specified in section 141(1) of the principal Act elapses without the claimant having required the objection to be referred to the Lands Tribunal under that section; or
2. (ii) the objection, having been so referred to the Lands Tribunal, is upheld by the Tribunal with respect to the hereditament, unit or part.

(8) The grounds on which objection may be made in a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act to a notice under this section are those specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of that section and also the following grounds:—

1. (a) that, on the date of service of the notice under this section, the claimant had no interest as mortgagee in any part of the hereditament or agricultural unit to which the notice relates;
2. (b) that (for reasons specified in the counter-notice, the claimant had not on that date the power referred to in subsection (2)(a) above;
3. (c) that the conditions specified in subsection (2)(b) and (c) above are not fulfilled;
4. (d) that (for reasons specified in the counter-notice) neither of the conditions specified in subsection (4) above was, on the date of service of the notice under this section, satisfied with regard to the interest referred to in that subsection.

(9) The provisions of the principal Act specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments of planning blight provisions of principal Act) to this Act (being provisions relating to blight notices and to proceedings arising out of such notices) shall be amended in accordance with that Schedule."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to discuss Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 42 together, for they belong together. There were Amendments down at the Committee stage in the Commons about extending the benefits of the blight provisions in the 1962 Act to mortgagees as well as to owner-occupiers. The Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing then said that the Government viewed the idea with favour and would bring forward Amendments to meet the point, provided that there were no snags. These three Amendments do that. Their object is to enable mortgagees of property, the owners of which would be entitled to serve a blight notice, to serve such a notice in place of the owner where the mortgagee would be entitled to sell the property with vacant possession. The effect of this is to extend the definition of "owner-occupier" to cover mortgagees in possession.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I welcome this new clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Extension of grounds of objection to purchase of claimant's interest]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39:

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("do")in line 4 on page 27 and insert— ("Where a blight notice is served under section 139 of the principal Act or section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) above, then in the case of land—

1. (a)falling within section 31(1)(a) above; or
2. (b)falling within paragraph (c) of section 138(1) of the principal Act and not within paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection or paragraph (d) of section 31(1) above,

the grounds on which an objection may be made in a counter-notice under section 140 of the principal Act shall include the grounds that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of sections 139 to 151 of the principal Act and section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) above.") —(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 40: Page 28, line 4, leave out ("notice served under section 139 of this Act") and insert ("blight notice").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together and point out that Amendment No. 100, introducing a new Schedule, depends upon this Amendment. In the 1962 Act and in this Bill blight notices are not given a name but are referred to as notices served under Section 139. The purpose of these Amendments is to give them the name "blight notice".

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I had been tempted to inquire how the phrase "blight notice" got on to the Statute Book. I gather that that is all brought about by the new Schedule. In any case, I am glad that I did not give myself away by asking, innocently or ignorantly, at an earlier stage. I will search the new Schedule and compare it with the principal Act to see exactly how it happened.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Compensation for compulsory purchase of land in clearance areas and of historic buildings]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 30, leave out ("notice under section 139 of the principal Act") and insert ("blight notice").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part VIII of the principal Act]:

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 12, leave out from first ("Act") to ("shall") in line 13 and insert ("or section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice)of this Act, section 140(1) of that Act (objection to blight notice").—Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Compulsory acquisition of listed building in need of repair]:

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 43: Page 39, line 28, leave out ("London borough").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment Nos. 43 and 44 hang together. Clause 46 gives local authorities the power to acquire compulsorily listed buildings which are in need of repair in certain circumstances. The Greater London Council was left out by an oversight and these Amendments rectify that omission.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 29, after ("situated") insert ("or in the case of a building situated in Greater London. the Greater London Council or the London borough council").—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Repairs notice as preliminary to compulsory acquisition]:

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 45: Page 40, line 39, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, generally, I do not like tabling again for the Report stage an Amendment which has been moved and discussed in Committee, but I feel that I am justified in doing so in this case because perhaps the reason underlying my Amendment was not fully realised on the Committee stage until I had explained it. This is a case where a local authority or the Minister may be considering the compulsory purchase of a listed building because the owner or occupier has been neglecting it. Clause 47 says that Neither a council nor the Minister shall start the compulsory purchase of a building … unless at least one month previously they have served on the owner … a notice … (a) specifying the works they consider reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building"— and so forth.

It appears to me that one month is sufficient only if one assumes that the owner is going to do nothing at all about it. But I think that we should conceive it possible that the owner may have a change of heart and may decide that he would rather put matters right than have the building compulsorily purchased from him. If that is so, one month seems to me a very short interval to give him, particularly as he may be abroad on business, or otherwise not available to attend to the correspondence instantly at the time when the repairs notice under Clause 47 arrives. It still appears to me that two months would be a more reasonable interval, while not becoming a delaying interval, and I greatly hope that the Government may now be willing to agree to this slightly longer period.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I said during the Committee stage that this seemed like a good idea and that I would look at it to see whether there were any snags. I have not been able to find any. I still think it is a good idea, and so I am delighted to invite the House to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52 [Directions by Minister to local planning authorities with respect to development affecting Conservation Areas]:

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 46: Page 43, line 39, leave out from ("determining") to ("and") in line 42 and insert ("an application—

1. (a)for planning permission for any such development as is referred to in section 1(6) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (special provisions as to publicity for applications. affecting Conservation Areas); or
2. (b)for listed building consent for any works for the demolition, alteration or extension of a building in a Conservation Area").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 52, which we have now reached, was introduced by the Government at our Committee stage. It enables the Minister to give directions to planning authorities, first about the matters which they are to take into account when considering applications affecting conservation areas, and, secondly, about consultations which they are to undertake before reaching their decisions on such applications. As drafted originally, that implied only planning permission, but it seems clear that applications for listed building consent in conservation areas—that means consent to knock down a listed building—should be brought within the scope of the Minister's power to make directions, and that is what the Amendment does. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.58 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 47: After Clause 52 insert the following new clause:

Additional requirement of notice for development affecting Conservation Areas

".—(1) Where an application for planning permission for any development of land is made to a local planning authority and the case is one where the authority are required to comply with section 1(6) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 (special publicity for planning applications affecting Conservation Areas) the authority shall also comply with the following subsection.

(2) The authority shall, for not less than seven days display a notice on or near the land to which the application relates, containing the same particulars as are required by section 1(6)(a) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 to be contained in the notice to be published by the authority in a local newspaper.

(3) An application for planning permission to which section 1(6) of the said Act of 1967 applies shall not be determined by the local planning authority before both of the following periods have elapsed, namely:—

1. (a)the period of twenty-one days referred to in paragraph (a)of that subsection; and
2. (b)the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice required by subsection (2) of this section was first displayed;

and in determining the application the authority shall take into account any representations relating to the application which are received by them before both those periods have elapsed.

(4) In the said section 1(6), paragraph (b) and (c) shall cease to have effect."

The noble Lord said: This new clause hangs together with the new clause No. 80 in the Marshalled List and with Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 127 to the Schedules. I propose to discuss them all now and to move the others formally, if this one finds favour. This Amendment is to implement an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage on a discussion of the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. At that time he did not accept that there should be a blanket requirement to post notices on the site for all the 400,000 planning applications made annually. But the Government now agree that it is desirable to secure wider publicity for planning applications of substantial effect and importance where the present method of bringing the matter to public notice is already by advertisement in the local Press. The local authority associations have been told that the Government will wish to consult them after the passage of the Bill to see what more can be done about publicity for planning applications. One proposal that we shall wish to discuss is that where a local authority advertises substantial departures from development plans under the terms of development plan directions there should be a requirement to post site notices. This is the most important proposal that the Government have on the site notices question. I ask the House to bear that in mind, because it does not require any Amendment of the Bill. That will be put in hand, anyhow.

The two new clauses, my Lords they are rather lengthy, add up to two smaller additions in this field of posting site notices. But I think that between them the new clauses and the substantial departure ones, which do not require an Amendment to the Bill, should cover just about all the cases where there is an argument for putting up a site notice. The first new clause, that after Clause 52, says that those applications which must be advertised under the Civic Amenities Act, because they affect conservation areas, are also to have site notices posted about them. The second new clause, that after Clause 67, says that what is known in planning jargon as bad neighbour development, which must at present be advertised, is also to have a site notice put up about it when an application is put in.

My Lords, I think the only other thing that I ought to impart to the House at this stage is to remind your Lordships that the Minister of State in my Department said in the House of Commons that he would look at any ideas that were submitted to him about adding to the G.D.O. categories of proposed development requiring notification; that is the so-called bad neighbour list. I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I warmly welcome both of these new clauses. I think it is an excellent thing that both of these should be written into the Bill, and I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said about the possibility of extending this type of treatment to substantial departures from a plan. I have no criticism of either of the two new clauses. The only point that I wish to raise—and it was indeed referred to obliquely in the noble Lord's concluding words—is this. Alterations to the list of cases which will require special publicity treatment under the principal Act and will require the posting of notices under the second of these new clauses, are made, I think I am right in saying, by development order. Indeed, there is a reference in the second new clause which says: … classes of planning application prescribed by a development order … I greatly hope that the Government, when the question of amending a development order in this context is under active consideration, will find some means of associating Members of both Houses of Parliament who are interested in the subject more closely.

It always seems to me, my Lords, a slightly curious fact about our arrangements that the Government consult the local authority associations and many highly reputable professional organisations about matters of this kind on which they are proposing to make Orders or regulations, but there is no provision for their consulting Members of both Houses of Parliament, who are at least equally interested. When the Order embodying the regulations comes before Parliament it is not capable of amendment. Members of both Houses, therefore, appear to me to be in a less favourable position to influence the content of the Order or the regulations than these important outside bodies. I genuinely feel that this is a weakness in our practice.

I appreciate that in certain cases the degree of secrecy required might make it difficult to consult Members of Parliament in advance, but that does not arise here. There is no question of secrecy here; there is only a common desire to arrive at the right sort of list to put into the regulations. I think it would be most helpful if the Government could find some means of notifying Members of both Houses, who have shown by their participation in the work on this Bill that they have an interest, that this subject is now under active consideration, and inviting them perhaps to a discussion in the Department about the list. I do not know exactly what the best procedure would be, but I should like to leave that idea with the Government. Having said that, I commend these two new clauses to the House as warmly as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has just said, and I suggest that we start right now. Let me invite Members of this House to write to me as soon as they like with suggestions for addition to the list. The list, by the way, is to be found in Article 6 of the General Development Order. If noble Lords will glance at that and see if they think there is anything else that ought to be subject to the advertisement and site notice provision, and will drop me a line, we will consider it, and perhaps hold a meeting later on.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.5 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 48: After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:

Amendment of 1946 Act, Sch.

".In paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 (application of special parliamentary procedure to compulsory purchase order affecting ancient monument etc., subject to certificate by Minister of Public Building and Works that undertakings have been given as to its preservation) the reference to land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaelogical interest shall be construed as not including a reference to a listed building or any land or object comprised within the curtilage of such a building unless the building or object is specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Ad 1882 or is for the time being specified in a list published under section 12 of the Ancient Monuments Act 1913."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 provides that any compulsory purchase order which authorises the purchase of land which contains an ancient monument is to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure unless the Minister of Public Building and Works gives a certificate that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking to observe satisfactory conditions about the use of the land.

This comes in because the term "ancient monuments" as used in the 1946 Act is so wide as to include all listed buildings, even if they are not ancient monuments in the flat rower sense; that is, listed or scheduled by the Ministry of Public Building and Works under the Ancient Monuments Acts. As the law stands at present, therefore, any compulsory purchase order which includes a listed building ought to go through special Parliamentary procedure. As a matter of fact, I cannot claim that it always has in the past, and in any case the proper place to consider the effect of the presence of a listed building on the C.P.O. is in the normal operation of planning law—consultation between the Minister, the local authority, local amenity societies, and so on and so forth—but not by assimilating it to the more rigid and restricted ancient monuments legislation.

This Amendment makes it clear that listed buildings are not ancient monuments for the purpose of the 1946 Act unless they happen also to be ancient monuments in the narrower sense under the ancient monuments legislation. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Constitution of Planning Inquiry Commissions]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 27, after ("authorised") insert ("by the other")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57 [Procedure on reference to a Planning Inquiry Commission]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 48, line 20, at end insert— ("() Where a Planning Inquiry Commission are to hold a local inquiry under subsection (3) above in connection with a matter referred to them, and it appears to the responsible Minister or Ministers, in the case of some other matter falling to be determined by a Minister of the Crown and required or authorised by an enactment other than this section to be the subject of a local inquiry, that the two matters are so far cognate that they should be considered together, he or, as the case may be, they may direct that the two inquiries be held concurrently or combined as one inquiry.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a local inquiry required to be held by virtue of an enactment other than the Bill and the 1962 Act to be held, where appropriate, concurrently with a local inquiry being held by a Planning Inquiry Commission. With many development proposals this will not arise. But one class of matters referable to a Planning Inquiry Commission comprises matters requiring authorisation under other legislation as well as under planning legislation. The construction of a new power station, for example (though not all such proposals would merit reference to a Planning Inquiry Commission), requires authorisation under the Electricity Acts, and it is possible that it would generally be quite proper, and more convenient from the point of view of any objectors, to hold any inquiry required under those Acts concurrently with the local inquiry held in the second phase of its investigation by the Planning Inquiry Commission. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58 [Delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities]:

6.10 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 51: Page 49, leave out lines 1 and 2.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will take the determination of advertisement applications out of the list of matters which a planning authority may delegate to its own officers. The reason for this requires some explanation, and I apologise to the House if I am somewhat lengthy on this point, but there is a decision of Government policy which it becomes necessary to make public at this point, and the most convenient place to do it is on this Amendment in this House this afternoon.

On March 21, when this Bill was at Committee stage in another place, Mr. John Fraser suggested that the right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of a local planning authority on an application for consent to display an advertisement should be abolished. At that time my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State said that he would consult the local authority associations and the advertisement interests about the suggestion. This he has done. The local authority associations are in favour of it, and the advertising industry is opposed to it; so also is the Corporation of the City of London. My right honourable friend the Minister has considered all the representations made to him both in favour of the abolition of the right and against the abolition of the right, and he has concluded that the control of advertisements is essentially a local matter which ought to be left entirely to the locally elected authority. Accordingly, he has decided, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to amend the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations so as to delete the provision for appeals.

When my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State saw representatives of the Outdoor Advertising Council, led by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on July 2, it was suggested that only an appeal to the Minister would prevent some local authorities from acting unreasonably, and, while purporting to refuse applications on the legitimate grounds of amenity and public safety, in fact they might do so on other undisclosed grounds, such as a general prejudice against advertisements, or a judgment based on some mistake of fact, or even a dislike of the substance being advertised in the particular case under consideration. My right honourable friend does not necessarily accept that any local authority might act in such a way; and, indeed, local authorities are already required to decide applications solely with regard to amenity or public safety.

To make the matter absolutely clear, however, my right honourable friend the Minister will also amend the regulations so as to require that the reasons for refusal or the conditions attached to a consent be specified fully by the local authority and to require also that the authority state any facts which they regard as material to their decision. This will enable an applicant to challenge the decision in the courts, if he considers that the authority have not properly considered the case in the light solely of amenity and public safety, which are the only criteria permissible under the regulations.

The amending regulations will be laid in due course. My right honourable friend considers that when there is no right of appeal against a decision on an application to display an advertisement, which he regards as a matter for local decision, that decision ought to be taken by the local planning authority who are the elected representatives of the local community and not delegated by them to an officer of the authority. Hence the Amendment now before the House. When Mr. John Fraser suggested that advertisement appeals should be abolished he also suggested that consideration should be given to allowing more advertisements to be displayed with what is known as "deemed consent"; that is, without an application having to be made to the local authority, although the authority could challenge it by requiring an application for express consent. My right honourable friend is prepared to discuss this possibility with representatives of the advertising industry and of the local authorities. My Lords, I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am sorry that the Government, on their own initiative, have dispelled the concord with which we have hitherto been debating this Bill through all its stages. This Amendment is, I gather from the noble Lord's speech, a kind of paving Amendment in the Bill to drastic action which the Minister proposes to take subsequently by regulations outside the Bill. He said that it was a decision of Government policy which it became necessary to announce at this point. It certainly was not necessary to make this decision, and I am extremely surprised that the Government have ventured to make it in face of the almost unanimous opposition with which the original suggestion has been met.

There was, of course, nothing about this in the Bill as first presented to Parliament. There was nothing about it in the Report of the Management Study on Development Control recently, which was commissioned by the Government; and in the terms of reference of that study the Government said the study should cover the control of advertisements under the Act. The drastic proposal that they have in mind was not recommended by that body, nor, so far as I am aware, by any other body. It sprang entirely from a speech by a Back-Bench Government supporter in Standing Committee in another place. The Government have discussed it, as the noble Lord said, with the local authority associations. It is not really very surprising that the local authority associations should support a proposal which will remove an appeal against their decisions to the Minister. It would be really incredible that the local authority associations should do anything other than support a proposal of that kind. I can imagine a very much larger field of work where the local authority associations would welcome the removal of any sort of ministerial interference with their decisions. So the fact that the local authority associations approve is really not a count in favour of this proposal at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the advertising interests were opposed to this deprivation of the right of appeal. Equally naturally, it would be expected that they would be opposed to it. What he did not mention was that the Confederation of British Industry is opposed to it; the National Chamber of Trade is opposed to it; the Law Society, a body to which Parliament usually pays considerable regard, is opposed to it, and I understand that a number of professional organisations have all declared themselves opposed to it. In those circumstances, it seems to me quite extraordinary that, after the House of Commons has risen for the Summer Recess, this important announcement of Government policy, which seemed likely to run into widespread opposition, should be made here by means of a paving Amendment to this Clause 58.

Let us just examine how it is a paving Amendment. The Bill as introduced, and as it passed through another place and came here, included applications for advertisement consents among those matters which could be delegated by a local authority to its officers. Nobody has challenged that at any stage—neither the advertising industry nor the local authority associations, nor anybody else. That is accepted. But what the Government want to do is, quite apart from and outside this Bill, to take away the right of appeal to the Minister against a refusal of consent for the display of an advertisement. The Government no doubt realise that this would be an even more unpopular action if the decision had been taken not by the local authority itself— that is to say, the elected members—but by some officer of the local authority. So, they are now seeking to pave the way for this unpopular decision by removing applications for consent to the display of advertisements from those matters which, under this Bill, can be delegated by the local authority to officers. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. I think one must judge this Amendment not on what it actually does but on what it implies and what it is paving the way to.

If I remember rightly, the whole subject of advertisement control occupied a good deal of attention when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was taking through Parliament his 1947 Act, and it was partly on that account that the right of appeal to the Minister in the case of an application for advertisement consent was not incorporated in the Bill. But what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill said, was that he accepted entirely that there must be a right of appeal and that he wanted to consider further what machinery of appeal should be provided, and that he would secure that that was done under regulations. That is what happened, and that is how these appeals to the Minister against refusal of consent to the display of advertisements have been carried on ever since. If I remember rightly, a firm and unqualified pledge was made by the noble Lord at that time that there would be a right of appeal. And now, on July 29, after the House of Commons has risen for the Summer Recess, the Government announce that they are going to take away that right of appeal to which their predecessors were pledged.

I cannot accept this. I should willingly accept a procedure under which the Government set up an independent committee to look into the matter and to see whether the expense of advertisement control could be lessened, because if 1 remember rightly that was the defence that Mr. Fraser adduced in another place. He pointed out the expense and trouble involved and suggested that a great deal of that trouble and expense could be obviated by abandoning the right of appeal. Of course it could, just as a great deal of trouble and expense could be saved in the law courts by abolishing the Court of Appeal. But that is not the answer. At the present time I understand that about 20 per cent. of all appeals to the Minister under this heading succeed.

In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explained, there is a strong feeling that a number of local authorities might take an almost prohibitive line—not merely restrictive—if they did not know that there was a right of appeal to the Minister, and that the possession by the advertiser of that right of appeal ensures that the standards set throughout the country remain reasonably uniform. Considerable issues are involved here. I am sure the Law Society would not have set itself in opposition to this proposal if it did not feel that it was an interference with the course of justice. Because this is a paving Amendment to a course of action which I consider entirely unacceptable, I must ask that if the Government press it my noble friends will vote against the Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I hope the Government have not said the last word on this matter. I do not know whether they are aware that this really constitutes a breach of faith with the advertising interests. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is quite right when he says that this was a matter which received a great deal of discussion during the passage of the 1947 Bill. At that time the control over outdoor advertising was very loose and the advertising interests were greatly concerned that the Bill considerably strengthend the control over such advertisements and in fact virtually abolished outdoor advertising in the countryside. They were afraid of the very things which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out: that local authorities might be prejudiced against advertisements generally or against particular advertisements or against particular advertisers. The only way in which one could satisfy them was to give them this right of appeal. It was in consideration of that right of appeal that they withdrew their objections to the provisions relating to advertising in the 1947 Act.

I feel it is a breach of faith with them that, having got their approval, admittedly twenty years ago, to the insertion of these provisions on the understanding that there would be a right of appeal, we are now withdrawing that right. Apart altogether from that, it is rather odd, and going very much against the general trend of events, that we should be withdrawing a right of appeal against the decision of a local authority. After all, the whole trend of events is to give people a right of appeal against what they may consider to be arbitrary or wrong decisions. We assume that a local authority is not guided by the various considerations which I have enumerated, but they can still be wrong and they may take the view that an advertisement in a particular place is dangerous, injurious from the traffic point of view, or that it is a breach of amenity. However, they may be wrong, and the advertiser is surely entitled to have the right of appeal against this decision.

I am sorry that this arises through the instrumentality of Mr. John Fraser. He happens to be a partner of mine, but I am afraid he did not consult me about this at all. Had he done so, I might have enlightened him about what had gone before. Nevertheless, I feel it is so wrong that if there is a Division I shall be forced to vote in favour of my political opponents. I hope the Government will be prepared to think about this matter again. It is really wrong.

6.28 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, with the leave of the House, as we are on Report stage I should like to take up some of the points that have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, described this Amendment as paving to a drastic action not connected with the Bill. I do not deny that the action is somewhat drastic in the very limited field and the small matter which it concerns, but I think the word "paving" is probably not quite right. It does not simply pave, the way to that. It is an Amendment which the Government, and I think probably all sides of the House, agree should be adopted if the major decision is taken. The Government intend that it shall be taken, but, of course, Parliament is sovereign in this as in all other matters. I shall return to this point later. It is a consequential improvement in advance of the major measure—that is the way I should like to put it.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of the unanimous disapproval with which the measure had been greeted. I do not think he can say that, because it has not been announced before. The possibility has been greeted with disapproval precisely from those one would expect to disapprove of it, namely, the advertising interests. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned also the Law Society. I have not yet seen the terms of their objection to it and we shall study them carefully. Now that the change is announced, we shall, of course, be better able to gauge the mood in which different sectors of the community greet it. I shall be very surprised indeed if it is unanimous or anywhere approaching unanimous. I do not think it is particularly in the interests of anybody except the advertisers that they should have an appeal on these very small matters covering only outdoor advertisements.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, is it not in the interests of good administration that there should be a right of appeal for any citizen against possible arbitrary decision?

LORD KENNET

I will come to that point, which is the crux of the matter, in a moment.

On the question of unanimity, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, somewhat brushed aside the opinions of the local authority associations, saying that he would expect them to be for it because they would always like to be able to abolish all appeals so as to be able to proceed in an authoritarian manner without consulting anybody. I do not think it is right to look at it in that way. The associations express the collective wisdom of the local representatives, who are precisely that, elected by the people to deal with local matters, as freely as Parliament can bring themselves to agree that they should; and in this case I think Parliament should bring themselves to agree, because what could be more a local matter than the question whether or not there should be a hoarding on station road or a "Player's" advertisement outside the tobacconist's shop? This is really not something for Whitehall interference.

On the point the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made, about the announcement being made after the Commons has risen, I do not know whether he intended to imply that there was anything sinister in it, but I assure him there is not. The announcement had, for the convenience of everybody, to be made to-day if the Bill was to be amended to operate the new system, if it comes into effect, more effectively, by denying local authorities the right to delegate these decisions to their own officers. It happens that the House of Commons is not sitting and we are going on for a week longer for reasons that we all know. I would ask the House to put out of their minds any thought that there is a plot about this, because there is not. The Government will have to face the music in the House of Commons anyhow.

On the question of the figures the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said he understood that about 20 per cent. of appeals were being allowed at the moment. I am informed that the actual figure this year is 16 per cent., which is not very different. That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it, and I submit a more useful way, is to ask what proportion of all applications for advertisement permission are being allowed on appeal. That is, not what proportion of appeals are being allowed, but what proportion of the whole lot have to go to appeal in order to get through. That figure is one per cent. The remainder either do not go to appeal or are disallowed on appeal. If we take away the right of appeal on the statistics over the last few years we are depriving the advertising industry of one per cent. of its applications to display advertisements on particular sites. There is no question of a material reduction in the turnover of the outdoor advertising industry. It is quite out of the question. That would be quite an irresponsible suggestion and it has not been made.

It may be of interest to the House to know that the Council on Tribunals has been consulted about this proposal. They did not object in principle to the eventual abolition of appeals. What they did think was that the appeals ought to be abolished progressively as local planning authorities were considered competent to exercise the new functions under the Bill. My right honourable friend is not convinced this is the right way to look at it. In the first place, it would not be practicable to abolish appeals by stages. If they were to be abolished anywhere they should be abolished everywhere, right across the country. I think this is clear in ordinary justice. Secondly, the criteria of competence for preparing local plans are quite different from those for deciding advertising applications, which is such a very small matter in comparison. So it would not seem appropriate to make this depend on the giving of the new powers under the Bill as a whole to local authorities, but better to do it right across the country in one go.

My noble friend Lord Silkin spoke of a breach of faith. I do not know that when a Government introduces a provision, and that provision is part of a deal accepted by a certain interest in a given year, it must be supposed that that deal must endure, on both sides of it, to all eternity, and if it does not there is a question of breach of faith. I should have thought that after 21 years it would be quite permissible to submit to Parliament a proposal for changing a law enacted 21 years ago without any allegation of a breach of faith. I do not know what the House thinks, but that is my own view.

To come to the crux of the matter, it is this. Can anybody think of a matter which is more truly local in its importance than the question whether or not there shall be an advertisement in a given place? My noble friend Lord Silkin spoke of the trend towards allowing a right of appeal in more and more cases, and said that this proposal cuts across it. I would say that there is another trend—that is, increasing devolution of truly local matters to local final decision, a trend which I welcome very strongly; and I would say that we may hope in future to see a trend devolving final decision in regional matters to regional authorities.

I know there are many Members of this House who would like to see devolution of final decision in matters concerning Scotland and Wales to Scotland and Wales, and away from Whitehall. If we can think in terms of devolution on such big and important issues without Whitehall interference, surely we can think in terms of leaving final decision on matters such as whether or not an advertisement should appear outside a shop in the high street to the local elected representatives, and get rid of the necessity to maintain a quite sizeable central staff crawling all over the shop in order that the man in Whitehall shall make sure that the locally-elected person has not erred.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was thinking, I believe, of advising his noble friends to divide against this Amendment. I think it would appear curious if it were done, because the Amendment, I would remind the House, says simply, "Let us change the Bill so that local authorities may not devolve these decisions on their officials". The Government think it is right to do this, because if the final say is going to be at local authority level, and not Whitehall level, let us at least see that it is taken by the elected representatives of the full council or committee and not by their officers. I would urge on the House the view that the right thing to do in this case is to consider the amended regulations when they come before the house to consider the major issue, which tonight is not before the House—I have merely announced the Government's intention. What is before the House is this little consequential improvement in advance.

Either the regulations will go through Parliament or they will not. Let us consider the two cases. If they go through, I think noble Lords would agree it would be better that local authorities should not have power to devolve it on their own officers, because if there is no appeal it is a bit much to leave it to a local authority officer. On the other hand, if the amended regulations do not go through Parliament, we shall find, if the Amendment is accepted, the decision may not be devolved by the local authority to its own officers but there would still be an appeal. I would submit that this does not matter very much, and it would be better to keep the two issues quite separate—to vote on the Amendment on its merits, do we or do we not permit local authorities to devolve this to their own officers, and then to consider the amended regulations when they come before Parliament for approval.

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. Can he say whether National Parks are also included? He spoke of the local authorities, the planning authorities, being elected, but in the case of the National Parks where there is a Planning Board some of its members are appointed by the Minister.

LORD KENNET

My Lards, I am not quite sure that I have understood the noble Lord's question. What is it?

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I was asking whether in fact the proposals we have been discussing are applicable equally to National Parks as to the rest of the country, because the planning boards there are not entirely elected.

LORD KENNET

The Amendment and the regulations themselves will make no change in the identity of advertisement control authorities. If an authority has been an advertisement control authority it will continue to be so. There will be no new ones and no subtractions from the list.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, the Minister's refrain has been that there can be no more local matter than this. Not long ago my local authority ordered me to remove a door in a stone wall and to fill the gap by rebuilding the stone wall. Your Lordships might say "What could be a more local matter than that"? But there was an appeal to the Minister, and I exercised my right of appeal. The Minister considered the matter and, in his wisdom, he said, "Your door in the wall is perfectly all right and it can stay where it is".

To my mind the value of these appeals to the Minister, even in quite local matters, is that thereby some sort of uniformity is achieved all over the country in the way citizens are treated, because local authorities discover by experience what Whitehall considers reasonable and they act accordingly. Without this right of appeal you do not get the kind of uniformity of treatment which is surely desirable up and down the country.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has assuaged the feelings

of Lord Silkin, but he certainly has not assuaged mine. I am particularly grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who, it seemed to me, exposed the weakness of the Government's case when it was argued that these decisions on advertising control were purely local. An enormous percentage of all planning applications and planning appeals are purely local, and only a minority of them raise wider issues. The logic of the Government's case is that the right of appeal to the Minister on the refusal of a planning application ought to be abolished, except in a minority of cases where there are clearly wider than local considerations. I am quite certain that that would not be acceptable to your Lordships. I am interested to hear that the proportion of successful appeals is down this year to 16 per cent. The figure of 20 per cent. was quoted in debate by the Minister of State in another place, and that was why I used it.

Whatever the noble Lord says about the argument, it remains to me quite clear that this Amendment is an integral part of a proposal which is totally unacceptable, so far as I am aware, to everybody except the Government and the local authority associations. The noble Lord questioned me about the Law Society. He himself referred to a meeting held at the Ministry in July; and I think I can say with confidence that the representative of the Law Society at that important, key meeting opposed the change which the Government have now announced. I feel more strongly than ever that I should advise my noble friends to vote against this Amendment.

6.47 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Granville of Eye, L.	Plummer, Bs.
Beswick, L.	Henderson, L.	Popplewell, L.
Blyton, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Richie-Calder, L.
Bowles, L.	Hilton of Upton, L.[Teiller]	Royle, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Kennet, L.	Rusholme, L.
Burden, L.	Leatherland, L.	St. Davids, V.
Champion, L.	Lindgren, L.	Serota, Bs.
Collison, L.	Maelor, L.	Shackleton, L.
Crook, L.	Milner of Leeds, L	Strabolgi, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Nunburnholme, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Peddie, L.	Williamson, L.
Garnsworthy, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]	Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Eccles	Mowbray and Stourton, L,
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Ferrers, E.	Poltimore, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Gage, V.	Rankeillour, L.
Airedale, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Rathcavan, L.
Albemarle, E.	Grenfell, L.	Redesdale, L.
Aldington, L.	Gridley, L.	Rockley, L.
Auckland, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Audley, Bs.	Hawke, L.	St. Just, L.
Balerno, L.	Hylton-Foster, Bs.	Sandford, L.
Barrington, V.	Iddesleigh, E.	Sandys, L.
Belstead, L.	Inglewood, L.	Selkirk, E.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Killearn, L.	Silkin, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Kilmany, L.	Somers, L.
Buckton, L.	Kirkwood, L.	Strang, L.
Carrington, L.	Lambert, V.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Clwyd, L.	Latymer, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Craigmyle, L.	Mancroft, L.	Swinton, E.
Cranbrook, E.	Margadale, L.	Teviot, L.
Crathorne, L.	Mills, V.	Teynham, L.
Daventry, V.	Milverton, L.	Thurlow, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Monsell, V.	Vivian, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Mottistone, L.	Wade, L.
		Wakefield of Kendal, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 49, line 9, at end insert— ("() an application for an established use certificate under sections (Certification of established use) of this Act").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment adds applications for established use certificates to the list of matters which may be delegated to an officer of a local authority. Such applications will turn on matters of fact and law rather than raise issues of planning policy. I beg to move.

Clause 59 [Limit of duration of planning permissions past and present]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 53: Page 50, line 22, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("the beginning of 1968").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House has already discussed at an earlier stage the principle lying behind Amendment 53. I beg to move formally.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if we considered Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56. Perhaps, by leave, I could move them together. They are drafting Amendments which have been submitted for the purposes of clarification. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 50, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section").

Page 50, line 28, leave out ("and if not granted, shall") and insert ("or as the case may").

Page 50, line 39, at end insert— ("(3) If after the commencement of this section planning permission is granted without the condition required by subsection (2) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the development to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of the grant.")—(Baroness Serota.)

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 51, line 6, at end insert— ("(e) to any planning permission granted under section 20 of the principal Act on an application relating to buildings or works completed, or a use of land instituted, before the date of the application")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to except a Section 20 permission front the time limit provisions. I beg to move.

Clause 60 [Outline planning permissions]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 58: Page 51, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment hangs together with Amendments 62 and 63. It is a paving Amendment for Amendment 62. As at presented drafted, Clause 60 is deficient, in that it contains no provision for the case where outline permission has been granted before the commencement of the clause subject to an expressed time limit condition of some kind. Amendment No. 62 makes good this deficiency. I beg to move.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 59: Page 51, line 17, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("beginning of 1968")

On Question, Amendment agreed to. 6.53 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 60: Page 51, line 22, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60. Perhaps your Lordships will consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 61, 64, 65 and 67, which are linked with it. This series of arithmetical Amendments arises in this way. In non-statutory language, Clause 60, as drafted, says, after grant of outline planning permission, application for detailed planning permission must be made within two years and a start must be made on the development within three years of the grant of the detailed planning permission. In Committee I criticised the shortness of these periods and I moved that the proposed interval of two years should be extended to three. The Government said that this would mean an extension by one year of the whole process, which was not acceptable to them.

I am accordingly, on this occasion, not proposing any extension of the whole period; I am simply saying that it should be three plus two, instead of two plus three, which still makes only five. I know there is considerable anxiety among professional bodies about the shortness of the five years. Nevertheless I am not pressing that further. I know that the chartered land societies made representations to the Government that if there was to be this "two and three" scheme it should more appropriately be three and two, than two and three. I think the reason underlying that is that a considerable amount of work has to be put in before one is in a position to submit a detailed planning application. Applicants will already have received outline planning permission and will probably not wish to put themselves to the trouble, and expense, of preparing detailed plans—if it is a large development, the expenses may be considerable—until it is quite clear that they are in a position to go ahead with it.

On the other hand, I think the chartered land societies felt that after detailed planning permission had been granted there was no particular reason why the developers should not get on with the job within two years. Since we debated this matter in Committee, I have been in touch with the Federation of Registered House Builders also, and although they are still strongly critical of the overall five-year period they endorse my view, as embodied in this Amendment, that it would be better to have three plus two than two plus three. I think that is quite a substantial body of support for my Amendment, and as this proposal of mine on Report stage does not involve any lengthening of the total period I hope it may be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has indicated, these Amendments would make the time limit provisions in Clause 60 read so that three years instead of two years was the standard period allowed for the submission of applications for the approval of details after the grant of an outline permission, and two years instead of three the standard period for the commencement of development after approval of details. He has also indicated to us that the earlier proposals he put to us at the Committee stage are not put to-day, but he has confined the series of Amendments for debate to-day to the "three plus two" principle. My right honourable friend still takes the view that the periods at present in the Bill are to be preferred and in fact would work out better in practice, but it is really a question of balancing the time to be allowed for preparation of detailed plans against the time to be allowed for the preparation and letting of contracts and the physical preparations necessary before work can begin.

Nevertheless, I must admit that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would not fundamentally affect its operation or frustrate its purpose. Moreover, at any rate in relation to new permissions, the clause leaves the final decision on what the periods should be to the local planning authority and the Minister, so to that extent the Amendments are of limited effect. In these circumstances, if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, were to press his Amendments I could not advise my noble friends on this side of the House to divide against him.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, I find that reply disappointing, because it is not just the preparation of detailed plans and things of that kind that are involved. Finance plays a very important part in development, and such things as credit restrictions, the economy of the country and matters of that kind arise. Whereas the financial arrangements can all be completed and made available for development, it may well be that financial circumstances alter and it is not possible to proceed as planned. Considered on a schedule of that kind, I think it is a pity that something cannot be done to extend the period, as has been suggested.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I think that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Wakefield of Kendal, while a very important one, should be dealt with by the procedures for it which are set out in the Bill. For my part, I appreciate the attitude of the noble Baroness, who, I know, always seeks to be as helpful as she can. She did not exactly welcome these Amendments of mine with enthusiasm but she said that she would not advise her noble friends to vote against them. I myself think that it would be hardly worth while to have a Division either way on this question so I greatly hope that if I stand by the Amendments she will fulfil her promise and the Amendments will be written into the Bill. Then we shall all see how we get on. As she rightly said, there is flexibility in the Bill so that adjustments can be made in the course of practice if they are found to be needed.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 29, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62.

Amendment moved—

Page 51, line 32, at end insert— ("(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to a planning permission granted before the commencement of this section subject to an express condition that the development to which it relates should be begun, or be completed, or that application for approval of any reserved matter should be made, not later than a specified date or within a specified period.")—(Baroness Serota.)

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("subject") in line37.—(Baroness Serota.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 40, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 1, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 52, leave out lines 5 to 11 and insert— ("(4) If after the commencement of this section outline planning permission is granted without any conditions under subsection (3) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to those conditions.

(5) The authority concerned with the terms of an outline planning permission may, in applying subsection (3) above, substitute, or direct that there be substituted, for the periods of two years, five years or three years referred to in that subsection such other periods respectively (whether longer or shorter) as they consider appropriate.

(6) The said authority may, in applying the said subsection, specify, or direct that there be specified, separate periods under paragraph (a) of the subsection in relation to separate parts of the development to which the planning permission relates; and, if they do so, the condition required by paragraph (b) of the subsection shall then be framed correspondingly by reference to those parts, instead of by references to the development as a whole.

(7) In considering whether to exercise their powers under subsections (5) and (6) above, the said authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. In moving it I would draw your Lordships' attention to a new subsection (6) which incorporates the most substantial alteration contained in this Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I beg to move No. 67, the Amendment to the Amendment: Subsection (5), line 4, leave out ("two years, five years or three") and insert ("three years, five years or two")

Amendment No. 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61 [Provisions supplementary to sections 59 and 60]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 68.

Amendment moved—

Page 52, line 34, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 35 and insert— ("or a person appointed by him under section 19 of this Act to determine the appeal grants the approval, on the date of the determination of the appeal by the Minister or that person. (4) Where after the commencement of sections 59 to 60 above a local planning authority grant planning permission, the fact that any of the conditions of the permission are required by this Act to be imposed, or are deemed by this Act to be imposed, shall not prevent the conditions being the subject of an appeal under section 23 of the principal Act against the decision of the authority. (5) Section 18(3) of the principal Act (planning permission not to be taken as authorising operations carried out after the time limited in that behalf by the permission) shall not have effect in relation to a planning permission having conditions attached to it by or under section 59(1), (2) or (3) or section 60(2) or (3) or (4) above; but in the case of such a planning permission (whether outline or other),—

1. (a) development carried out after the date by which the conditions of the permission require it to be carried out shall be treated as not authorised by the permission; and
104
2. (b)an application for approval of a reserved matter, if it is made after the date by which the conditions require it to be made, shall be treated as not made in accordance with the terms of the permission.")—(Baroness Serota.)

Clause 62 [Termination of planning permission by reference to time limit]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 53, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where, by virtue of section 59 or 60 above, a planning permission (whether granted before or after the commencement of those sections) is subject to a condition that the development to which the permission relates must be begun before the expiration of a particular period and that development has been begun within that period but the period has elapsed without the development having been completed. (2) If the local planning authority are of opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period, they may serve a notice (hereafter in this section referred to as a 'completion notice') stating that the planning permission will cease to have effect at the expiration of a further period specified in the notice, being a period of not less than twelve months after the notice takes effect.")—(Baroness Serota.)

Page 53, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 24 and insert ("take effect only if and when it is confirmed by the Minister, who may in confirming it substitute some longer period for that specified in the notice as the period at the expiration of").

Page 53, line 35, leave out ("as from the date specified in the notice") and insert ("as the expiration of the period specified in the notice for the purposes of subsection (2) above").

Page 53, line 37, leave out ("and including that date") and insert ("the end of that period").

Page 53, line 39, leave out ("date specified therein as that on") and insert ("expiration of the period specified therein as the period at the expiration of").—(Baroness Serota.)

Clause 63 [New provision as to what is "operational land" of statutory undertakers]:

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 54, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert— ("(b) the undertakers' interest in the land was acquired by them as the result of a transfer under provisions of the Transport Act 1968 from other statutory undertakers and the land was, immediately before the transfer, operational land of those other undertakers").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed this clause on Committee, I undertook to look again at the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, about the handing of operational land by one statutory undertaker to another. I think that I can cut short my explanation by reminding the House that the example he proposed where things might go wrong would be that the Bill would permit a Gas Board to acquire land from British Rail and then to put gas holders on what was earlier a siding, because the railway use would have been operational use and the gas holder would also be operational use.

It is true that the Bill as introduced would have done this. We have looked at various ways of ensuring that such an event, unlikely as it was, would be prevented by the Bill and have concluded that the best way is to narrow the matter by specific reference to the proposed reorganisation of the transport undertakings as that appears in the Transport Bill now before the House. With that explanation, I beg to move.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would wish me on his behalf to welcome this Amendment. It certainly seemed that the original paragraph (b) went much too wide. In the context in which we are discussing it, the proposed paragraph (b) appears to be very much more sensible. I am as grateful as all others concerned in the matter will be that the Government have agreed to amend the Bill in this sense.

Clause 65 [Restriction on entitlement of statutory undertakers to compensation for adverse planning decisions]:

7.12 p.m.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved Amendment No. 75:

Leave out Clause 65 and insert the following new clause: (".—(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) below, statutory undertakers shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of a decision mentioned in section 170(1)(a) or (b) of the principal Act (Right to compensation in respect of certain decisions and orders) where that decision is made after the commencement of this section. (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to compensation in respect of a decision made in accordance with section 159 of the principal Act refusing planning permission for the development of operational land, or granting such permission subject to conditions, where—

1. (a)planning permission for that development would have been granted by a development order but for a direction given under such an order that planning permission so granted should not apply o the development; and
2. (b)the development is not specifically authorised by statute (within the meaning given to that expression by section 58(3) of this Act).

(3) Section 119 of the principal Act (compensation on refusal of planning permission or its grant subject to conditions) shall not apply in relation to planning permission for the development of operational lard of statutory undertakers.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilford. I do so on his behalf, since he has had to leave the House. As the law stands, statutory undertakers applying for planning permission to carry out development on their operational land and receiving a refusal of permission or a grant of permission subject to onerous conditions, may claim compensation from the local planning authority. This is in complete contrast to the position of the private developer who in similar circumstances would not be entitled to any compensation at all.

During the passage of this Bill through both Houses various Amendments have been made on this matter. Briefly, the position is that, under the clause as it now stands, the new concept is that the clause provides for the making of regulations by the planning Minister and the appropriate sponsoring Minister to specify types of development for each class of statutory undertaker or even for a single undertaker. Where development is covered by the regulations, compensation will be payable at the rate of 50 per cent., whereas if development does not fall within the regulations there will be no right of compensation a all to the statutory developer.

The present clause goes a step towards the complete removal of the right to compensation in all cases for which the clause I am moving is designed to provide. It has thus been conceded that there are circumstances in which no compensation ought to be payable. Why not remove the entitlement to compensation altogether? The issue of principle here is clear; namely, that in matters of development control the local planning authority should not in any circumstances in their consideration of any application for planning permission have regard to the possibility that their decision, if adverse to the developer, might give rise to a liability for compensation. It might obviously influence their consideration of the matter. In practical planning terms it should be of no account to the planning authority that the developer is a statutory undertaker, the only class of developer in this privileged position. Their only concern should be to determine whether or not the development is right for the land in question and, if so, whether any conditions should be attached to it.

Perhaps I can give an illustration to show why I feel that the present position is wrong and unfair. Let us take an oil company which wants to put up an oil tank, which may be a very ugly object and in many ways is rather similar to a gasometer. If they are refused permission to put up their oil tank, they get no compensation. If, however, the Gas Board is refused compensation, in the case where they want to put up agasometer—which may be even larger and more hideous than an oil tank—under these proposals they would get 50 per cent. compensation. To my simple mind it seems to me that that "ain't right". One has two things to consider. One is that the mind of the planning authority may be affected by the fact that they have to pay compensation in one case and not in another, and the other is that it is unfair as between a private developer and a statutory undertaker. For those brief reasons, I beg to move.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. This Amendment has the backing of the County Councils' Association. I know of a similar case in my own vicinity, where a large firm is contemplating a course of action which, in the opinion of many, will seriously injure amenities. The case is now sub judice, so I cannot refer to it in detail. The point is that, although the Minister will have a difficult decision, it would be unthinkable that the whole circumstances would not be examined at a public local inquiry or, if the Minister decided to attach conditions, that they should not be borne entirely by the firm. It is difficult to understand why the statutory undertakers should have this privileged condition or should impose conditions on ratepayers for the maintenance of the amenities.

I sometimes wonder whether there is not some element of inter-departmental feeling in this matter, in that some Departments may feel that, having been given deemed planning permission, it would be wrong for another Ministry to have supervision over their work. In equity, I can see no real distinction between the work of statutory undertakers or the work of these large firms which often claim, as I am sure they will do in the case I have mentioned, that they are acting in the national interest. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I greatly hope that the Government will be forthcoming in their reply to my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury, who has explained his Amendment so clearly that I need add very little. In the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Ilford moved a similar Amendment and I, as an alternative, moved an Amendment to reduce the 50 per cent. compensation to 10 per cent. compensation. I think my noble friend's method is more well principled than mine, because I can see no case at all for any compensation here. But even taking the Bill as it stands, the proposal of compensation at the rate of 50 per cent. is itself without any basis in principle. The figure of 50 per cent. can be arrived at by no other method than splitting the difference, which is not really a very good way of settling these matters. It was arrived at under duress in the case of the Abingdon gas holder, because there was little doubt that the Gas Board, which I think was operating in that case under a Private Act, could have laid legal claim to the full 100 per cent. compensation.

There are two important issues here to bear in mind. One is that if a statutory undertaker is not allowed to do something which, for the purpose of its undertaking, it wants to do on operational land, and it suffers thereby, it is in no worse case than any other developer or, indeed, any other industry. If you have a factory and it is urgently desirable for the sake of economic production that that factory should be extended, nevertheless the planning authority may have good grounds for refusing the planning application for extension. The grounds may be so good that that refusal is held up by the Minister on appeal, and there is no sort of compensation to the firm concerned. It simply loses the financial advantage that it would have had if it had been allowed to do what was deemed to be not consistent with good planning.

And so with the statutory undertaker. In the hypothetical case, the statutory undertaker is not authorised by the planning authorities to do something, because it is contrary to good planning, and that will increase its costs. It will not make it impossible to carry on the undertaking; it will simply increase its costs. The costs must be spread over the consumers of whatever service or facility or product the undertaker provides, as they must be paid by somebody. But there seems no reason whatever why the statutory undertaker should have the opportunity, which the private owner or the private developer does not, of shifting an additional financial burden on to the shoulders of the ratepayers in general, if they and their representatives wish to preserve the town or the piece of country, or whatever it may be, in a manner which is consistent with good planning. That is the first point.

The second point is that a planning authority ought not to have to consider liability to compensation when it is reaching decisions on planning applications. A planning application comes before it and it should judge that on its merits, and not be hampered by the thought that if it refuses planning permission it may cast a burden, possibly running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, on its ratepayers.

I know well the case that is made for special treatment of the statutory undertakers—that is to say, the railway that wants a siding must have the siding adjoining the railway; the Gas Board that wants a gas holder must have the gas holder in a certain place, or, at any rate, within a certain radius of that plate, or its costs will be higher— and the question is: where should the additional costs fall? I wholly agree with my noble friends that there is no case, in principle, for granting the statutory undertakers a privileged position above everybody else in this matter. That is why I greatly hope that the Government will be prepared to say that they will accept this Amendment either in detail or, at any rate, in principle.

7.25 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, when this clause was before us in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, agreed to withdraw the Amendments which they had down, on the understanding that the Government would without commitment look again at the question of compensation to statutory undertakers. This we have done in the light of the criticisms which they and others made, and of the alternative proposals embodied in their Amendments. The Government's view remains that the clause should staid as it is.

It has been argued that local planning authorities should be free to make planning decisions without having to think of their liability to pay compensation if permission is refused. That has been argued here this afternoon and it is commonly argued in planning circles when this matter is discussed. But this liability does not arise only towards statutory undertakers. There are many circumstances in which a planning decision may entail the payment of compensation; for example, where a permission is revoked —which I agree is rather a special case —or where a would-be developer is not allowed to exercise rights granted by the General Development Order. This is something much more closely relevant to what we are now discussing. There is nothing in this principle of liability to compensation which is peculiar to statutory undertakers.

Let us spend a few moments on the case of the Abingdon gas holder, which has been much quoted as an example of the kind of favouritism which ought to stop. I hope to dispel some misconceptions about this case which, as the Government fully recognise, rightly aroused great public interest. The Gas Board's right to compensation had nothing to do with their being statutory undertakers; any other body would have been entitled to compensation in the same circumstances. Very often, when these matters are discussed, these two points have either not been recognised or, if they have, seem to me to have been given too little weight.

The position is that where development has been authorised by both Houses of Parliament in the form of private or local legislation (which exists for private concerns and local authorities as well as for statutory undertakers) then that development is permitted by the General Development Order, Class XII. If rights under any Class of this Order are withdrawn and the developers are prevented from doing what that Order permits, then they are entitled to compensation. That is what happened at Abingdon. The case received a lot of publicity because Abingdon is a pretty, old town, and because the compensation payable was substantial. But that compensation was payable because General Development Order rights were being taken away, and not because the developers happened to be statutory undertakers. In the event, as we know, the compensation payable was reduced by 50 per cent.

It is true that statutory undertakers have often had to rely on Private Act or Ministerial Order to get adequate powers, and, consequently, Class XII of the G.D.O. is perhaps more frequently relevant to their development than it is to development by other people. It is also true that if planning control is used to prevent statutory undertakers from carrying out the kind of development which, on technical and other grounds, is the best solution to their problem, the second-best solutions available may be unusually expensive to them. I am thinking of such things as high-pressure, low-level gas holders, instead of the old-fashioned low-pressure, high-level ones. It is for this reason that the statutory undertakers were given a special compensation code, even where there is no Private Act to give them access to the General Development Order provisions. The result of this is that the imposition of planning controls on statutory under takers is often, in practice, more expensive, and so, in a sense, more difficult, than the imposition of similar controls on other developers.

Clause 65 as drafted deals with the compensation payable to statutory undertakers in two kinds of case. First, there is the one that I have just been talking about, where there are rights under Class XII of the G.D.O. These rights, as I have explained, are not peculiar to statutory undertakers. But as their activities may make more impact than other people's, Clause 65, as a first step—and this is Clause 65 as drafted—halves the compensation payable to statutory undertakers. Second, there are the cases under Section 170 of the 1962 Act, where the right to compensation is dependent on the land being operational land. Here, statutory undertakers do have a right not enjoyed by others, so here, too, the clause as drafted, as a first step, halves their compensation.

One might argue, as some noble Lords have done, that the time has come to put statutory undertakers in both cases on exactly the same footing as anybody else. This is attractive when you say it, but what do we mean by "anybody else"? The clause tabled by Lord Ilford would abolish statutory undertakers' rights to compensation in cases where they have no permission granted by the G.D.O., and apply for planning permission to develop operational land but permission is refused. That far, Lord Ilford's clause would indeed put the undertakers on the same footing as anybody else. But it would abolish altogether the undertakers' compensation rights where they are deprived of their development rights under Class XII of the G.D.O. Other developers who are deprived of these rights would continue to get full compensation both under the Bill as introduced and with Lord Ilford's proposed Amendment. So in this type of case Lord Ilford's clause would treat statutory undertakers worse than anybody else. It would not put them in the same position as anybody else: it would positively penalise them.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would allow me to interupt him. Could he give any examples of these private undertakings which have received compensation with regard to their special rights, he having said that there are such private individuals? We have given certain examples of cases where they will not receive compensation. Has he any case which he can give us where they would?

LORD KENNET

No, I am sorry, my Lords; I have not got any ready. I can certainly look them up and send them to the noble Viscount. They would arise in cases where a Private Act gave them access to the privileged position of G.D.O. Class XII. I can find out what has been done in this respect and let the noble Viscount know.

All this being so, the Government naturally considered leaving the amount of Class XII compensation alone and simply abolishing altogether the special right to compensation where the land is operational. This would indeed have brought about complete parity between statutory undertakers and the others, but I think it would have worked out less well than what we now propose, which is to take the two kinds of case together and halve the compensation for both. The Government's present clause will thus leave statutory undertakers worse off than other developers in one kind of case, the Class XII case, and still at some advantage in the other class of case, where operational land is involved.

My Lords, we have not stopped there. Clause 63 narrows the definition of operational land. Then, again, the regulations to be made under Clause 65—and this is the second step; I referred to the first step earlier—will mean that a great many developments which would hitherto have qualified for full compensation and which might still have qualified for as much as a half will instead qualify for none at all. Thus the only kind of development on operational land which will qualify for compensation, even at 50 per cent., will be development necessary to enable an undertaking to carry out a primary statutory function and, in particular, in the siting or design of which operational considerations seriously limit the undertakers' freedom of choice". I quote from my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State on the Commons Report stage. Only where statutory undertakers are in this special position will they qualify for even 50 per cent. on operational land. If what they propose does not fall within that definition—and it is easy to see that quite a lot will not—they will not get any compensation whatever on refusal.

My Lords, this is a big advance. I do not claim perpetuity for Clause 65 as now drafted. It should produce a reasonable result and a much fairer position than the present arrangement. This is what matters. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that a statutory undertaker, when refused permission, was in no worse case than anybody else. I believe this is not so at all. I believe this is very far from the truth, because it remains an overriding fact in this whole field that statutory undertakers, unlike ordinary commercial operators, are not free simply to abandon the project. They cannot just go somewhere else or go into another line of business. They cannot even go out of business, because they have a statutory duty to provide a service. Where they provide their service it is nearly always for the benefit of the local community, and if the local community want provided in the interests of their area in a way which is more expensive, as the: may very rightly want, it is not unreasonable that the local planning authority should make a contribution through the rates.

It may be hard to put this contribution on communities where the amenities are worth preserving, whereas no doubt in other cases the local authority will not think it worth refusing and paying up the compensation. But there is money also in local amenity. If a town is pretty and is kept pretty, it attracts tourists, and this is reflected in the rates.

Until now, the Government agree, the scales have been tipped in favour of statutory undertakers. At very considerable expense to them and wholly to the advantage of local authorities, the measures we propose will redress, the balance. We have tried to strike a fair balance—and the Government are generally criticised for going either too far or not far enough, and often for both at the same time. So, as we have not been persuaded that the alternatives discussed in Committee and put down for to-day's debate would provide a more equitable basis for the present Bill, I shall ask the House to accept Clause 65 as it stands.

7.36 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I, for one, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having explained so clearly and at such conscientious length the changes which the Government arc proposing to make by means of this Bill. I think he has made the very best of the case, if I may say so with respect. I must however affirm that to my mind it is not good enough. I really do not think we ought to let this Bill leave your Lordships' House with the provision that a statutory undertaker seeking a development on operational land, for which he has no Private Act, or no G.D.O. cover, shall be entitled to 50 per cent. compensation if the local planning authority decides, and the Minister upholds the decision on appeal, that the development is undesirable from the planning aspect.

LORD KENNET

I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. He should qualify that by saying, "if it is the exercise of a primary statutory function on operational land as that is newly and more narrowly defined in the Bill."

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I accept that. The noble Lord will appreciate that I have not a brief from which to speak on this, and I am using shorthand terms to describe the situation. But I entirely accept that the Government have gone a long way in the changes which they propose. With respect, I do not think that the instance of compensation on the revocation of a planning permission is relevant. If a planning authority has given one decision and later on thinks it has made a mistake, and wants to change, then its blood be on its own head and the compensation on its own ratepayers: it has made a mistake and it must pay compensation for setting things right. Likewise, I do not think it is a parallel to the wider case when one quotes the General Development Order exemption for development that is authorised by some Private Act. I do not know how old the Gas Act was in relation to Abingdon; but I suspect that it was fairly old and that Parliament had taken its decisions without any foresight or possibility of foresight as to the enormity of the outrage that years later might be perpetrated on the small town of Abingdon.

I think I am reasonably correct in saying that the General Development Order exemptions are, in the main, exemptions for the type of development that is so unobjectionable that there is no need for planning permission to be sought. It happens that there is included in that list a case where development has been specifically authorised under an Act of Parliament. Some of these Acts may go back a long way. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to remember that we are legislating, even now, that the ordinary planning permission shall lapse after five years unless it has been acted upon.

I appreciate that the Government have been trying to find a solution but I really think they must try harder. My noble friend's Amendment may not be perfectly drafted. On a matter like this, I think it is quite an achievement to draft an Amendment which stands up at aft I said in Committee that I had quailed at the prospect; and produced a much simpler and less principled Amendment of my own. Except by passing an Amendment of this general character, I do not see how we can ensure that the statutory undertaker is in no more favourable a position as regards compensation than other developers in the normal case which is not covered by a private Act or previous planning permission or anything of that kind. Perhaps in another place they may be able to draft it with more precision so as to achieve the effect that my noble friend Lord Grimston described. I do not know whether other noble Lords will wish to express views. I am fairly confident that public opinion generally is in favour of this Amendment in principle. For my part, if my noble friend decides to press it—and that is entirely a matter for him—I shall go into the Lobby with him.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, from what has been said, it appears to me that unless we press this Amendment the position will be that in normal cases statutory undertakers will still be in a privileged position. That is the principle against which we are standing. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet. said that the new clause may in certain exceptional circumstances give an advantage to the private undertakers. I accept from him that that may be so, and that to that extent the drafting of this new clause is faulty; but on the main issue I think it is right. I would suggest to your Lordships that the best way to deal with this problem is to vote this new clause into the Bill and then at the next stage the Government can put forward any suggestions for removing these advantages which may, it is said, accrue to private developers. For those reasons I ask the House to divide.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 76: After Clause 65 insert the following new clause:

Modifications of s. 164 of principal Act.

(".—(1) Section 164 of the principal Act (power of Minister, local planning authority or statutory undertakers, on acquisition or appropriation of land for development, by service of notice under the section to secure extinguishment of statutory undertakers' rights over the land or the removal of their apparatus) shall be amended in accordance with this section.

(2)A notice under that section shall not be served by the acquiring or appropriating authority unless they are satisfied that the extinguishment of the statutory undertakers' right or, as the case may be, the removal of their apparatus, is necessary for the purposes of carrying out any development with a view to which the land was acquired or appropriated.

(3)The period referred to in subsection (1) of the said section (that is to say the period to be specified in a notice under the section as the period at the end of which the statutory under-

7.47 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Daventry, V.	Rankeillour, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]	Redesdale, L.
Albemarle, E.	Ferrers, E.	Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Auckland, L.	Gage, V.	Rockley, L.
Balerno, L.	Goschen, V.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Belstead, L.	Gray, L.	St. Just, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Gridley, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Grimston of Westbury, L. [Teller.]	Sandford, L.
Buckton, L.		Sandys, L.
Chesham, L.	Hawke, L.	Selkirk, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Inglewood, L.	Somers, L.
Clwyd, L.	Killearn, L.	Strang, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Latymer, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Teviot, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Milverton, L.	Thurlow, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Mottistone, L.	Vivian, L.
Crathorne, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, I,.	Wade, L.
	Nunburnholme, L.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Garnsworthy, L.	Popplewell, L.
Beswick, L.	Granville of Eye, L.	Raglan, L.
Blyton, L.	Henderson, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Bowles, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Royle, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Rusholme, L.
Burden, L.	Kennet, L.	St. Davids, V.
Chalfont. L.	Leatherland, L.	Serota, Bs.
Champion, L.	Maelor, L.	Shackleton, L.
Collison, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Stocks, Bs.
Crook, L.	Peddie, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
	Plummer, Bs.	Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

takers' right will he extinguished or. as the case may be, before the end of which their apparatus shall be removed) shall be a period of not less than twenty-eight days from the date of service of the notice.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a number of Amendments which come in the latter part of the Bill and which are concerned with in-proving machinery. Unless any noble Lord tells me that I should not, I propose to move this group of Amendments formally, indicating that they are of a purely mechanical nature. I would therefore say, accordingly: My Lords, "Machinery: I beg to move."

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

What the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said is entirely acceptable to me. I know that he will draw the attention of the House to anything which is not a matter of machinery; not a matter of drafting and not consequential.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 77: After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:

Notice for same purposes as s. 164 of principal Act, but given by statutory undertakers.

(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where land has been acquired or appropriated as mentioned in section 164(1) of the principal Act, and—

1. (a)there is on, under or over the land any apparatus vested in or belonging to statutory undertakers; and
2. (b)the undertakers claim that development to be carried out on the land is such as to require, on technical or other grounds connected with the carrying on of their undertaking, the removal or re-siting of the apparatus;

the undertakers may serve on the acquiring or appropriating authority a notice claiming the right to enter on the land and carry out such works for the removal or re-siting of the apparatus or any part of it, as may be specified in the notice.

(3) Where, after the land has been acquired or appropriated as aforesaid, development of the land is begun to be carried out, no notice under this section shall be served later than twenty-one days after the beginning of the development.

(4) Where a notice is served under this section, the authority on whom it is served may, before the end of the period of twenty-eight days from the date of service, serve on the statutory undertakers a counter-notice stating that they object to all or any of the provisions of the notice and specifying the grounds of their objection.

(5) If no counter-notice is served under subsection (4) above, the statutory undertakers shall, after the end of the period of twenty-eight days therein mentioned, have the rights claimed in their notice.

(6) If a counter-notice is served under subsection (4) above, the statutory undertakers who served the notice under this section may either withdraw it or may apply to the Minister and the appropriate Minister for an order under this section conferring on the undertakers the rights claimed in the notice or such modified rights as the Minister and the appropriate Minister think it expedient to confer on them.

(7) Where, by virtue of this section or of an order of Ministers thereunder, statutory undertakers have the right to execute works for the removal of re-siting of apparatus, they may arrange with the acquiring or appropriating authority for the works to be carried out by that authority, under the superintendence of the undertakers, instead of by the undertakers themselves.

(8) Where works are carried out for the removal or re-siting of statutory undertakers' apparatus, being works which the undertakers have the right to carry out by virtue of this section or an order of Ministers thereunder, the undertakers shall be entitled to compensation from the acquiring or appropriating authority; and the amount of the compensation shall be an amount calculated in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of section 171 of the principal Act but reduced, in a case where the authority carry out the works, by the actual cost to the authority of doing so.

(9) In subsections (2) to (4) of section 171 of the principal Act, as they apply for the purposes of this section, any references to "the proceeding giving rise to compensation" shall, instead of being construed in accordance with subsection (5) of that section, be construed as a reference to the circumstances making it necessary for the apparatus in question to be removed or re-sited.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a little more than machinery. Here we are back on statutory undertakers. I should like to make it absolutely clear that this is not the same sort of issue, of big developments and compensation, that we were talking about. When a local authority acquires a part of a town for redevelopment, there is very often plant underground belonging to statutory undertakers. The local authority may serve a notice on the Gas Board or Electricity Board, or whatever it is, saying "You must please move this, so that we can get on with the redevelopment." If they served that notice they become liable to compensate the statutory undertaker for the cost of moving the plant.

It sometimes happens that a local authority, having acquired the land, simply do nothing. They do not serve any notice on the statutory undertaker, and thereby are not liable for compensation. This means that if the statutory undertaker wants to get his gear out of the way, he has to move it just the same, but he does not get any compensation. In certain parts of the country the one-sidedness of the present system is a source of friction between local authorities and statutory undertakers, and the Amendment will enable the statutory undertakers to serve a notice on the local authority if it does not happen the other way round. This will have the effect of balancing it out, so that the undertaker will get paid the cost of moving the equipment even if the local authority does not take the initiative.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.56 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 78: After Clause 66 insert the following new clause:

Conversion of shop into restaurant to constitute development

". The conversion of a shop into a refreshment house or restaurant shall, if begun after the commencement of this section, be treated for the purposes of the principal Act as involving development."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me set everybody's mind at rest at the outset by saying that I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I am well aware that its real effect would be to amend the Use Classes Order. I think that kind of thing is far better done by a new Order rather than by amendment through the Statute. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate that if we do not take our opportunities on a Bill like this of raising points which we should like considered in connection with the future Amendment of the Development Order or the Use Classes Order, the opportunity may not come until the Order has been laid; and when the Order has been laid it is incapable of amendment. I am therefore raising this now in the confident hope that consideration will be given to the point when the Use Classes Order is next under revision.

My Lords, at present, as I understand it, a shop, that is to say premises which, with planning permission, are used as a shop, can be converted into a restaurant, or café, or eating place, without any further planning permission being required. In a main shopping street there can surely be no objection to that. But we all know that there are very many shops existing with planning permission in residential areas. The type which perhaps we think of first is the corner shop which is extremely convenient to people living along the street. It has been the corner shop, where you could get all kinds of things, for years and years and years. Then there is the type which comes from an extension of a few shops round the corner from the main shopping street into an area which is essentially residential. Like the corner shop, any shop there can be converted into an eating place without further planning permission.

One may say from one point of view that this is no bad thing, because one does not want planning legislation to tie everybody up too tightly. But there is one aspect which I submit requires specific consideration. Planning is very much concerned with the preservation of environment. Shops normally close at half-past five or six o'clock, or half-past six or seven o'clock, or thereabouts. A cafe, or restaurant, or eating house, probably does not. Until recently it could stay open all night. It may even now stay open all night, but the Refreshment Houses Act 1967 does empower a local authority to fix a closing hour of 11 o'clock or later.

The broad situation, however, is that when a shop adjoining or bordering upon a residential area is turned into an eating place it may attract people and generate noise up to the late hours of the evening, whereas so long as it was a shop it closed down for active purpose very much earlier. I had one or two of such instances in my constituency when I was a Member of another place, and others have been reported to me. The objection arises, of course, after it has happened.

I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister in all this. Somebody comes along and buys a shop and is informed by his lawyer that he requires no further planning permission to, turn it into a restaurant that can stay open until the late hours of the evening. It is then discovered by the people living nearby that, whereas they had been living in a quiet street up to that time they now live in a noisy street. Some restaurants create little noise, but ethers, according to their clientele, may generate quite a lot of noise during the hours of the evening.

My request in this Amendment is simply that this point should be looked at in connection with any future revision of the use classes order. I am sure that one could not go as far as the Amendment suggests, because it is too sweeping, but I thought that this was the most convenient way of bringing the point to the notice of the Government. If they are prepared to say that this question of shop use changing, without additional planning permission, into late night catering use will be examined when the Bill has received the Royal Assent, I, for my part, shall be quite content and will withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that will be done in connection with the possible revision of the use classes order. As a matter of fact, we have not very much evidence of what the present situation is. The noble Lord mentioned an experience of his own. A few more experiences like that would help us to make up our minds the better about what ought to be done. There is the fact that noisy restaurant clienteles in the small hours can be controlled, eliminated or kept quiet by other provisions than the planning law, though I agree that this is not a conclusive case to keep them out of the provisions of the use classes order. Another point is that it is difficult to define a café or restaurant, because there are all sorts of mixed ones, and we have hitherto had real problems in finding a proper definition. However, with those two provisos, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks, that it will be considered in connection with the use classes order provision.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I appreciate the difficulties. I am content with his assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67 [Modification of transitory exemptions based on pro-1948 use]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 79: Page 58, line 26, leave out ("20th December 1967") and insert ("the beginning of 1968").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the last in the series of Amendments substituting the beginning of a calendar year for a reference to the 20th December. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 80:

After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:

Posting of site notice prior to planning application

(".—(1) An application for planning permission for development of any class to which section 15 of the principal Act (certain classes of planning application, prescribed by development order, to be supported by evidence of prior publicity) applies shall not be entertained by the local planning authority unless it is accompanied by one or other of the following certificates, signed by or on behalf of the applicant, that is to say—

1. (a)a certificate stating that he has complied with subsection (2) of this section and when he did so; or
2. (b)a certificate stating that he has been unable to comply with it because he has not such rights of access or other rights in respect of the land as would enable him to do so, but that he has taken such reasonable steps as are open to him (specifying them) to acquire those rights and has been unable to acquire them.

(2) In order to comply with this subsection a person must—

1. (a)post on the land a notice, in such form as may be prescribed by a development order, stating that the application for planning permission is to be made; and
2. (b)leave the notice in position for not less than seven days in a period of not more than one month immediately preceding the making of the application to the local planning authority.

(3) The said notice must be posted by affixing it firmly to some object on the land, and must be sited and displayed in such a way as to he easily visible and legible by members of the public without going on the land.

(4) The applicant shall not be treated as unable to comply with subsection (2) of this section if the notice is, without any fault or intention of his, removed, obscured or defaced before the seven days referred to in subsection (2)(b) above have elapsed, so long as he has taken reasonable steps for its protection and, if need be, replacement; and, if he has cause to rely on this subsection, his certificate under subsection (1) above shall state the relevant circumstances.

(5) The notice required by subsection (2) of this section shall (in addition to any other matters required to be contained therein) name a place within the locality where a copy of the application for planning permission, and of all plans and other documents submitted therewith, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during such period as may be specified in the notice, not being a period of less than twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the notice is first posted.

(6) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with the requirements of this section and which contains a statement which he knows to be false and misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.

(7) Any certificate issued for the purpose of this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by a development order.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause hangs together with Amendment No. 47 which, my noble friend Lord Kennet moved earlier on in our deliberations. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80 [Transfer of Ministerial functions as to stopping up etc. of footpaths and bridleways]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 67, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("() The power conferred on the Minister of Transport by section 153(1) of the principal Act to make an order authorising the stopping-up or diversion of a highway, where he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out as mentioned in that subsection, shall, in the case of a footpath or bridleway, he exercisable also by the Minister of Housing and Local Government where that Minister is so satisfied; and the Minister of Transport shall not make an order under that subsection in the case of a footpath or bridle-way unless, at the time when he first publishes notice of the order in accordance with section 154(1) of the principal Act, it appears to him to be necessary for the said purpose also to authorise the stopping-up or diversion of some other highway, not being a footpath or bridleway.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment, which hangs together with Amendment No. 121 to Schedule 7 to the Bill, replaces the present subsection (2) of Clause 80, which had the effect of transferring from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Housing and Local Government the power to make orders stopping up or diverting footpaths or bridleways. In its orginal form this power was too simply stated and it did not deal with a situation which is a relatively frequent occurrence in practice—that it is necessary to deal with a footpath or bridleway in the course of stopping up or diverting a highway which is open to vehicular traffic. It is therefore necessary to preserve the power of the Minister of Transport, who will be dealing with highways on which vehicles can be used, to deal also with footpaths and bridleways. The new subsection provides this, but goes on to say that the Minister of Transport is not to make an order in the case of a footpath or bridleway unless it appears to him to be necessary to authorise at the same time the stopping up or diversion of some other sort of highway. The effect will be that where only a footpath or bridleway is involved, only the Minister of Housing can act. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 82: Page 67, line 35, leave out ("footpath or bridleway") and insert ("highway").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 hang together and, with the leave of the House, I will move them in that way. The first of the Amendments is required because it will sometimes be necessary or expedient in an order diverting or stopping up a footpath or bridleway to substitute a highway on which there are rights of way with vehicles. Amendment No. 83 merely replaces the existing words with a simple formula. I beg to move.

On Question Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move No. 83.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("'footpath'") and insert ("In this Act").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82 [New powers to authorise stopping-up and diversion of highways]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 84 to 90 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move No. 84.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 1, leave out ("and section 86 below").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 85.

Amendment moved— Page 70, leave out lines 4 to 26.—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 30, leave out ("telegraph") and insert ("telegraphic").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 87.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 30, leave out ("77") and insert ("81").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 32, at end insert ("with the substitution in the said sections of the principal Act for references to the Minister of Transport and the said section 153(1) of references to the responsible Minister and this section").—(Baroness Scrota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89.

Amendment moved— Page 70, leave out lines 33 and 34.—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.9 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 90: After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:

Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway

".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a local planning authority by resolution adopt a proposal for improving the amenity of part of their area, being a proposal which involves a highway in that area (being a highway over which the public have a right of way with vehicles, but not a trunk road or a road classified as a principal road for the purposes of advances under section 235 of the Highways Act 1959) being changed to a footpath or bridleway.

(2) The responsible Minister may, on an application made by the local planning authority after consultation with the highway authority (if different), by order provide for the extinguishment of any right which persons may have to use vehicles on that highway.

(3) An order made under subsection (2) of this section may include such provision as the Minister (after consultation with the highway authority) thinks fit for permitting the use on the highway of vehicles (whether mechanically propelled or not), in such cases as may be specified in the order notwithstanding the extinguishment of any such right as is mentioned in that subsection; and any such provision may be framed by reference to particular descriptions of vehicles, or to particular persons by whom, or on whose authority, vehicles may be used, or to the circumstances in which, or the times at which, vehicles may be used for particular purposes.

(4) No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths, footways or bridleways shall affect any use of a vehicle on a highway in relation to which an order made under subsection (2) above has effect, where the use is permitted in accordance with provisions of the order included by virtue of subsection (3) above.

(5) Any person who, at the time of an order under subsection (2) of this section being made, has an interest in land having lawful access to a highway to which the order relates shall be entitled to be compensated by the local planning authority in respect of any depreciation in the value of his interest which is directly attributable to the order and of any other loss or damage which is so attributable.

In this subsection 'lawful access' means access authorised by planning permission granted under the principal Act or the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, or access in respect of which no such permission is necessary.

(6) A claim for compensation under subsection (5) above shall be made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under the principal Act.

(7) Sections 153(2), (3) and (5), 154, 156, 157 and 158 of the principal Act (provisions ancillary to section 153(1), provisions as to compulsory acquisition of land in connection with highways, and provisions as to telegraphic lines) shall apply in relation to an order under this section, as they apply in relation to an order under section 153(1) of that Act, with the substitution for references to the Minister of Transport and that section of references to the responsible Minister and this section.

(8) The responsible Minister may, on an application made by the local planning authority after consultation with the highway authority (if different) by order revoke an order made by him in relation to a highway under subsection (2) above; and the effect of the order shall be to reinstate any right to use vehicles on the highway, being a right which was extinguished by virtue of the order under the said subsection.

(9) Subsection (7) above shall not be taken as prejudicing any provision of the principal Act enabling orders to be varied or revoked.

(10) In this section—

1. (a) 'the responsible Minister' means, except in relation to Wales, the Minister of Transport, and, in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) 'statutory provision' means a provision contained in, or having effect under, any enactment."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to empower local authorities to carry out on highways, which have been converted to footpaths or bridleways by order under the preceding new clause, the kind of minor works which are appropriate where a pedestrian precinct has been created. One envisages here the laying out of flower beds, the creation of play spaces for children, and perhaps the provision of refreshment facilities, showcases, information boards and the like. It is conceivable that in some town centres shopping streets which have been turned into pedestrian precincts could be fitted with a showcase or two which could provide a valuable facility for publicising work going on towards the preparation of local plans, and these could make a useful contribution to stimulating public awareness of that process under the provisions of Part I of this Bill.

I hope that this new clause will commend itself to the House, in that it will provide an essential power, if full benefit is to be obtained from the power afforded by the preceding clause, to convert highways into footpaths or bridleways. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91.

Amendment moved— After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:

Power of local authorities to provide for amenity of converted highway

(".—(1) Where in relation to a highway an order has been made under subsection (2) of section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) of this Act, a competent authority may carry out and maintain any such works on or in the highway, or place on or in it any such objects or structures, as appear to them to be expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the order or of enhancing the amenity of the highway and its immediate surroundings or to be otherwise desirable for a purpose beneficial to the public.

(2) The powers exercisable by a competent authority under this section shall extend to laying out any part of the highway with lawns, trees, shrubs and flower beds and to providing facilities for recreation or refreshment.

(3) A competent authority may so exercise their powers under this section as to restrict the access of the public to any part of the highway, but shall not so exercise them as—

1. (a) to prevent persons from entering the highway at any place where they could enter it before the order under section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) was made; or
2. (b) to prevent the passage of the public along the highway; or
130
3. (c) to prevent normal access by pedestrians to premises adjoining the highway; or
4. (d) to prevent any use of vehicles which is permitted by an order made under the said section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) and applying to the highway; or
5. (e) to prevent statutory undertakers from having access to any works of theirs in, under or over the highway.

(4) An order under subsection (8) of the said section (Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway) may make provision requiring the removal of any obstruction of the highway resulting from the exercise by a competent authority of their powers under this section.

(5) The competent authorities for the purposes of this section are—

1. (a) the councils of counties, county boroughs and county districts; and
2. (b) in Greater London, the Greater London Council and the councils of London boroughs;

but such an authority shall not exercise any powers conferred by this section unless they have obtained the consent of the local planning authority and the highway authority (in a case where they are themselves not that authority).")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 86 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part IX of principal Act]:

BARONESS SEROTA moved Amendment No. 92: Page 72, line 16, leave out ("78") and insert ("82 or (Conversion of highway, into footpath or bridleway)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, first to put right an incorrect reference to Clause 58, and, secondly, to apply the provisions of Clause 86 to the new clause as well as to Clause 82. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 93.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 28, leave out ("the responsible Minister") and insert ("any Minister of the Crown").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 98 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94:

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) This Act,—

1. (a) except so far as it amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, section 24(9) of the Industrial Development Act 1966 and section 8(3) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967, shall not extend to Scotland; and
2. (b) except so far as it amends the said Act of 1957, shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Special provisions as to development plans in Greater London]:

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95.

Amendment moved— Page 77, line 25, leave out ("Part I of this Act (including this Schedule") and insert ("this Act").—(Baroness Serota.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 96: After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule: