LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 12 November 1975)

§ Baroness BIRK
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 41 to the Lords Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved these Amendments en bloc because they really are interwoven. The parts of the Amendments made in this House only mons have disagreed have the effect of requiring the prior consent of the owner to the making of planning application by a third party.
The Government see no reason to go as far as the Amendments now do to give an owner of a material interest an absolute right of veto over the making of a planning application on land in which he has an interest. The Government are therefore prepared to agree to the amendments made in this House only with the deletion of paragraph (b) in each case. In our view, the inclusion of paragraph (a) alone affords adequate protection to the land owner. The planning Acts already require anyone applying for planning permission on land which he does not own to serve notice on the owners. There is then an opportunity for the owners to make representations to the local planning authority, who can take them into account in reaching a decision on the application.
There is specific protection for an owner's position in the "prior right" provisions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. Under these provisions, anyone applying for planning permission may have a prior right to negotiate to carry out development on the land if it is acquired by an authority. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 specifically provides that a person making a planning application shall have the benefit of the prior right provisions only where his application to carry out development on the land is accompanied 1961 by the written consent of all those with a material interest in the land.
The Government therefore accept that there is a need to protect the position of the landowner when there is a planning application from a third party; but they maintain that this protection is afforded by paragraphs (a) of Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 together with the prior right provisions, and that paragraphs (b) of these Amendments are unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope your Lordships' House will agree with the Commons disagreement.

§ Lord SANDFORD
My Lords, these Commons Amendments to our Amendments leave us with another suspicion reinforced. If these are taken out, as the Government wish, there is nothing to stop either the Department or the authorities encouraging people in their pockets to go around putting in applications on land of unwary owners without their consent, getting planning permission from the authorities and thus setting in motion this whole compulsory acquisition process. That has not been possible before. This can now happen before the owner, if he is not absolutely alert and vigilant, is barely aware of what is happening to him and his property. It was to safeguard that position that we put in these Amendments. With this shabby little tailpiece, we come to the end of a very bad Bill by a very bad Government at the end of a very bad Session. I am glad we are now in sight of the end of the Session: I hope we shall soon be in sight of the end of the Government. It is a consoling thought that this Bill will bring that closer. We shall then certainly see the end of this legislation.

§ Baroness BIRK
My Lords, I will answer some of the points, some of the errors, made by the noble Lord when he spoke to the Amendments. He spoke as though this was an entirely new situation, about the bar on a third party planning application without owner's consent. The present situation has existed for many years, and successive Governments 1962 have never thought it necessary to go beyond providing for owners to be notified so they may make representations to the local planning committee. If a consent was intended to protect owners, this objective could easily be circumvented even with the Amendments that have been put down by the noble Lords opposite.
If a horde of developers are trying to "pinch" land, all they need do is write to an authority to ask them to make a CPO. In fact, they can do that now. What happens, as we know perfectly well, is that inquiries are made and the person whose land is affected can then object. If the Opposition really believe that there is a danger of owners being harried in this way, then the Amendments are ineffective. If they are going to push their point to extremes, I think one would say that nothing more could be achieved than what may be achieved now by third party applicants. If local planning authorities were prepared to co-operate in such manœuvres, the effects could have been achieved at any time during the past and at present. In fact this is not so. The Amendments are unnecessary and not viable. I am delighted that we have come to the end of these proceedings. They have been very long, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, like many of us, probably has been under some strain, otherwise he would have spoken with a more Christian-like attitude about the whole thing.
I am delighted that we are about to see this Bill reach the Statute Book. I do not for one moment believe that all the terrible results which have been prophesied will come to pass. In fact, I believe that once the uncertainty has been removed and this measure, radical, I agree, is on the Statute Book, local authorities and individual developers and so on—if you like, individual capitalists —will want to make sure that once something has become law, it will work properly for them. I certainly wish it luck, and the only word I can say, finally, is "Hooray"!

§ Baroness YOUNG
My Lords, before we conclude the proceedings, I would take this opportunity to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the Government's Reasons for not accepting the Lords Amendments. As 1963 the noble Baroness said at an earlier stage, the fact is that this is completely new legislation, introducing us into a new world. The quite consistent argument that we have heard from the Government when we have objected at various stages that, "it might be possible to do this now", does not mean that it is necessarily going to work in the same way in the future, because we are in a different world. I am bound to say that I do not share the optimism of the Government. I once described the Government's attitude to the nationalisation of land as being rather like their other nationalisation schemes, a triumph of hope over experience. I think this will be the case here and that as the Bill begins to work numbers of individuals whose rights have been taken away from them will begin to realise that this is not in the interests of the community.

§ Lord PANNELL
My Lords, there is only one thing I would say. I have sat here and watched with admiration both Front Benches as they have prognosticated the dim and dismal future, but when I consider the weight of this Bill, all that it does and the seriousness of it, I am simply amazed that the other side divided the House yesterday on what I consider to be a frivolity, while letting this massive legislation go by.

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, may I have the final word by congratulating all who have been concerned on both sides of the House on the triumph of endurance over exhaustion!

§ Lord STRABOLGI
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.