HL Deb 24 October 1968 vol 296 cc1577-8

[No. 9]

Clause 58, page 50, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert— (4) If after the commencement of this section outline planning permission is granted without the conditions required by subsection (2) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to these 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 three years, five years or two 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

  1. (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 reference 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 Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:

[No. 10]

Line 3, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9. This is a drafting Amendment which I hope your Lordships will find acceptable.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Serota.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, it is not a drafting Amendment. What has happened is that this House has been shown by this form of dealing with the matter to have made a mistake. But in fact this House did not make a mistake, either in this case or in the case of Amendment No. 12. We got it perfectly right when we sent the Bill to the Commons. What I believe has happened is that when the Lords Amendments which were passed on Third Reading in both these cases were turned back into references to the Bill as it was originally sent to us, the draftsman wrote it down for the Commons incorrectly, and the Commons presumably passed it incorrectly. Now we are told that we made the mistake. This is not so. I am perfectly prepared to agree with it, because the drafting as amended in this way would be correct in the Bill as it now stands, and the same applies to Amendment No. 12, but I do not think your Lordships should be supposed to have made this mistake.

On Question, Motion agreed to.