§ 26. In this Schedule "notice or order shall be served in accordance with section 283 of the Act of 1971 or 269 of the Scottish Act of 1972.")
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make certain that notices or orders within Schedule 4 are served in accordance with the usual planning practices under Section 283 of the 1971 Act or Section 269 of the 1972 Scottish Act. There are a number of cases where notices and orders are mentioned. I beg to move.
§ Lord MELCHETTI thought that I was going to have to justify a departure from the Town and Country Planning Act provisions, which of course this is. From the spirit in which the noble Earl moved this Amendment, I understand it does not strike at that matter, but at the application of this Part of the Bill 83 to Scotland. I confess that I do not have advice on this point at hand. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to take this away and see whether any modification is needed so far as Scotland is concerned.
The Earl of BALFOURI do not think the noble Lord understands this matter. Under Schedule 4 there are notices and orders which are required to be served, and I am arguing they should be served under the same provisions as the sections quoted here which exist in the respective planning Acts. I want to make certain that notices are served, or orders are issued, giving exactly the same provisions as are in those sections. Therefore there will be no short-cutting of the procedure.
§ Lord MELCHETTIn that case, the noble Earl was getting at the point which I and my advisers originally thought of, and I therefore find myself justifying a departure from the Town and Country Planning Act. The departure is made because the authorities which will be operating the scheme will, on the whole, be local authorities and it is felt that the sections of the Local Government Act (that is, Sections 231 and 233) which apply generally to the service of documents, which would also include notices and orders under the Bill, should apply to the giving or service of notices under Schedule 4. Local authorities will be operating under these provisions of the Local Government Act, and it seems sensible that authorities under the Bill should also operate under the same provisions. I can tell the noble Earl that there are services of notice provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, so that point is covered. I hope that with that brief explanation he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOURAs it appears to be covered under the Local Government Acts, I am happy on that point. But until I received that answer, I was not happy. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be the fourth Schedule to the Bill?
§ Lord MELCHETTIt may be convenient for the Committee for me to answer the question raised earlier by the 84 noble Earl. I said then that it would be more convenient to answer his question at this stage. The noble Earl appears to have forgotten. It may be that as I answer his question he will remember. This was with regard to the tense of the paragraph of the Schedule and why it said "was" rather than "is". The answer is that that paragraph says "was" because these notices are served after the compulsory purchase order has been made. Therefore, the compulsory purchase order was made at the time when the service of the notice is relevant. I hope that that answer is helpful.
The Earl of BALFOURThis is paragraph 7 on page 59 of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has gone too fast for me. This again concerned the Land Authority for Wales. Once they have made an application for a compulsory purchase order, are they then giving a reasonable opportunity to local authorities to object? It was purely from the Welsh local authorities' point of view. It is not something on which I want to take up the Committee's time. I felt that they must not do something first and ask questions afterwards, which can happen in the best of circumstances.
§ Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
§ 6.39 p.m.
§
The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 18, at end insert ("in accordance with the development or structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State").
§
The noble Earl said: Regarding the land acquisition management schemes I should like to recommend strongly that subsection (1) of Clause 16 should read:
There shall be a land acquisition and management scheme for the area of each county authority in accordance with the development or structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State.
I feel that people owning land, people involved in the development of land, the local authorities and everybody else concerned in this field, must have as much notice as possible and we must to some extent follow plans. I should perhaps add one more word of explanation. The words "structure plan" appear quite a lot in the Local Government (Scotland)
85
Act, and for that reason I think we need a little more than just the words "development plan". I beg to move.
§ Baroness BIRKThe effect of this Amendment would be to require that land acquisition and management schemes be drawn up in accordance with development or structure plans; but the Amendment confuses land acquisition and management schemes, which set out the functions of authorities in each area, with development plans, which include structure plans and which indicate the way in which such an area should be developed, regardless of who carries out the development. I think that if the noble Earl examines this point again in the light of what I have said, he will see that there is a confusion between land acquisition and management schemes and development plans. Clause 1 of the Bill gives concurrent functions in England and Scotland to both tiers of local government and to new town development corporations, and in England to the National Park Planning Board.
The LAMS for each county area is the means of resolving the conflicts and duplications which would otherwise occur. It is in no way concerned with the merits or demerits of land acquisition, nor with any particular piece of the land which may be acquired. That is a matter for the five-year rolling programme which authorities will be required to prepare in order to justify their borrowing requirements. A development plan is in no sense about who does what: it is about land-use planning and not about functions. Therefore it has no relevance to the preparation of the land acquisition and management schemes. So there is this difference, and although one may argue that land acquisition and management schemes ought to take account of the distribution of functions under the Planning Act, this is already achieved in Schedule 5, in paragraph 1(c) and (d.)
I do not know whether the noble Earl's Amendment also seeks to tie the land scheme to the planning system, but this is what the Bill is partially about and this is already achieved quite explicitly in Clause 17(2)(a) and (b.) Whatever may be the motives behind the Amendment, I think the noble Earl will agree that it could be meaningless nonsense to require the land acquisition and management schemes to be drawn up in accord- 86 with development plans. They are two separate things: there is first the one and then the other. For that reason this Amendment is unacceptable—although I imagine it was probably intended to be a probing Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOURThe noble Baroness is quite right in that assumption. In respect of the duties of local authorities, I feel they must follow some sort of plan or agreement whereby the average person living in an area of a county can know roughly what is being planned and what will go on. I felt that a plan was probably the best way of showing what the authority was doing, and where. I understand from what the noble Baroness has said that this appears as a management arrangement in this Part but it is not necessarily connected with any planning. I may have misunderstood, but I felt the object here was to make certain that where land had been acquired it was developed or laid out in accordance with efficient planning and, basically, good management in the development of the land—much as a farmer would plan his fences to suit his layout and what he planned to do with the various parts of his land. I felt this ought to be able to be questioned to some extent by the general public or, much more specifically of course, by the local councillors. Many local authorities are not very good at producing plans, and unless there are plans available people will not really know what is going to happen. However, I do not want to take up any further time, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 15, line 19, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made")
§ The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 82, 86, 87, 90 and 126. These are purely drafting Amendments. In the Bill as it stands we sometimes talk of "preparing" land acquisition and management schemes and sometimes of "making" land acquisition and management schemes. It has been decided to standardise this and so the expression "making" will be used. That is effected by the Amendments. I beg to move.
87
§
The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 15, line 22, after ("by") insert ("the county authority and")
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to bring about the situation that the scheme shall be for performance by the county authority and each of the authorities in the area of the county authority. For general clarity, I would have thought it was necessary to bring in both here, rather than just leaving it to the district authorities within the county to carry out the planning, and leaving the county out of it. Let us make this clear if possible, as to whether it is something that the county should do as well as the district, or something that just the district should do. I beg to move.
§ Lord MELCHETTOf course the county authorities will be involved in making land acquisition and management schemes. The Bill provides for this, because the reference, in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 5, to the county authority sending a copy to the Secretary of State makes it absolutely clear that the county authority itself is included.
§ Lord MELCHETTThat is the case.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.50 p.m.
§ The EARL of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 80:
§ Page 15, leave out lines 27 and 28, and insert—
- (" (i) developing it themselves, or
- (ii) developing it themselves and disposing of a material interest in it, or
- (iii) disposing of it for development by others, or
- (iv) leasing it for development by others; or
§
The noble Earl said: Somebody reading the Amendment might not realise that paragraph (ii) at line 29 of page 15 would be expected to follow paragraph
88
(iv) of my Amendment. Let me explain why. The Bill says:
the acquisition by those authorities of laud with a view to—
§ This appears to me to be very restrictive on the functions of the local authority. I feel that basically we must widen this provision from the point of view of local authorities, to allow them to do a little more. For example, they may want to dispose of land for development by others, or perhaps for it to be leased for development by others. But I must emphasise that my Amendment would delete only lines 27 and 28, of the Bill, and the words "making it available for development by others "would come after paragraph (iv) of the Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord MELCHETTI was not entirely clear from the noble Earl whether he was speaking to an Amendment other than his when moving this Amendment, or whether he was relating it to something in the Bill. It may be helpful if he got me straight on that point before I reply to this Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOURAmendment No. 80 would leave out paragraph (i) of Clause 16(3)(a) and substitute the four paragraphs of the Amendment, and paragraph (ii) in the Bill would become paragraph (v).
§ Lord MELCHETTI am very grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. However, I regret to have to tell him that the Amendment is unnecessary. Land acquisition and management schemes are meant to deal specifically with land bought for private development. Paragraph (i) of the Amendment would deal with local authorities buying land for their own use. Powers already exist for authorities to acquire land and develop it themselves for their statutory functions; for example, in the Housing Acts. Paragraph (i) is therefore unnecessary.
So far as paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the noble Earl's Amendment are concerned, the Bill as drafted provides for authorities acquiring land with a view to developing it themselves and disposing of material interests in it. The words 89 "making it available for development by others", in the Bill as drafted, cover both disposing of it for development by others or leasing it for development by others. Therefore, I have to tell the noble Earl that it is our view that paragraphs (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Amendment also ore unnecessary.
The Earl of BALFOURI am glad to have that explanation. I have no doubt it will be of benefit to local authorities. I certainly took legal advice on this point at the time and I felt that from a local authority point of view the wording was too restrictive. But that assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is good enough for me, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord SANDFORDAmendment No. 81 would introduce a debate on four other Amendments—Nos. 83, 84, 84A and 86A—all to do with the date of introduction of these schemes. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would feel, in view of the fact that that debate is certain to last quite a while, that it might be as well to break for supper now rather than in five minutes' time when we were already launched into it.
§ Lord STRABOLGII agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. That is a very good idea and I suggest that the Committee breaks now until 7.45 p.m. to take other business. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
§ House resumed.