HL Deb 30 June 1977 vol 384 cc1294-305

6.50 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Stop notices]:

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 8 and insert ("in respect of any land the local planning authority—

  1. (a) have served an enforcement notice requiring a breach of planning control to be remedied; but
  2. (b) consider it expedient to prevent, before the expiry of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, the carrying out of any activity which is, or is included in, a matter alleged by the notice to constitute the breach,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 on the Marshalled List. It will be recognised that this series of Amendments is the result of discussion at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House on an Amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Amendment No. 1 raised the question of whether the Bill itself should do any more than spell out matters to which the local planning authority should have regard when it considered whether or not to take stop action supplementary to enforcement action.

Before taking any enforcement action the local planning authority is required to consider whether it is expedient to take the action, having regard to the provisions of the development plan for the particular area and also any other material considerations. When the local planning authority has taken that action there is no obligation on the persons upon whom the notice has been served to cease their activities until the notice has come into effect and the period for compliance has expired. It is only then that it becomes an offence to continue the particular activity specified in the stop notice. I understand it is still considered that both under the existing Section 90 of the 1971 Act and under the new Section 90 that we substitute in the Act under this Bill, the local planning authority has to exercise a further discretion before serving a stop notice. I think everyone accepts that this calls for criteria of expediency which are different from those which apply when taking enforcement action.

Therefore, Amendment No. 1 draws attention to the need for the local planning authority to make the additional and separate decision as to whether it is—in House of Lords terms or even in Biblical terms—expedient to secure by the stop notice procedure the cessation of activities as a whole or just one or more particular activities, and by obtaining a stop notice to terminate this particular activity more speedily than could have been done under the associated enforcement notice. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 1 and Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential upon that. I beg to move.

Lord AIREDALE

My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Foot, who moved Amendments at the Committee stage, to express to your Lordships his apologies for being unable to be present this evening. He asked me to thank both the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and the Government for the fact that we have before us this evening Amendments which, in the words of a note which I have from my noble friend, … go some considerable way towards achieving what my original Amendments were intended to do".

Lord HALE

My Lords, as I spoke on the first Amendment at the Committee stage, I should like to echo those words. I have nothing to add, except to felicitate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on the clarity with which he has dealt with this matter and on the steps he has taken to meet very fairly the points that were raised.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I should like to support these Amendments. I am grateful for the amount of work that has been put in by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to try to reconcile the different views that were expressed, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who has worked very hard and made it possible for us to find the accommodation which at Committee stage I hoped it would be possible to find.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, after ("out") insert ("of that activity").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 18.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the two earlier Amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 7, at end insert (" or (d) the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman who is a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under paragraph 10 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and who has taken up winter quarters on the land with his equipment for some period falling between the beginning of October in any year and the end of March in the following year;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I have to point out that there is an error on the Marshalled List. It should read, "Page 2, line 10" and not "line 7". Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, Lord Foot, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is not able to be here today. Your Lordships may remember that he moved an Amendment on these lines at the Committee stage, but that Amendment was not accepted. We have changed the wording of the Amendment in the hope of perhaps making it a little clearer. If these words are accepted, the showman would then be identified in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 as: … a member of an organisation of travelling showmen which holds for the time being a certificate granted under paragraph 10 of the First Schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960", and the showmen's guild would of course hold the certificate. The show men would have taken up winter quarters on the land for some period falling between the beginning of October and the end of March of the following year. When looking through Hansard, one of the points that struck me was that both the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made the point that to exempt showmen would be to discriminate in their favour because other persons carrying on business in conjunction with their caravans would not be covered. In my view that point is mistaken because the showmen do not carry on any business in their winter quarters as opposed to scrap dealers and others. The showmen merely park their equipment with their caravans, and they have to do that for security reasons alone. If they are not able to look after their equipment in this way, they suffer considerably from vandalism.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were therefore wrong, I believe, in suggesting that the showmen would be using their equipment during the winter months, although I am glad to say they stated that showmen did not usually cause severe damage or nuisance or offence to other amenities. If the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, cannot accept this Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, could say whether instructions could be sent to local authorities, telling them about the importance of these showmen having some form of site, because one knows that some local authorities—perhaps quite rightly—are over-zealous in their attitude towards these travelling showmen. I hope this Amendment can be accepted. But, if it cannot, I wonder whether the Department would be prepared to include in their regular circulars to local authorities advice to the effect that travelling showmen face special difficulties with their vehicles in winter quarters and, as the debate on 21st June made clear, travelling showmen would not normally be included in the category of persons who caused severe damage or nuisance which would justify a stop notice against a vehicle. I beg to move.

The Earl of KINNOULL

My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lady Vickers. She has moved an Amendment which is slightly different from the Amendment moved at the previous stage of the Bill. I must say I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lord Brooke's Amendment, and indeed the advice he gave to the Committee that what this Bill was doing was taking out the special provision of the 1960 Act specifically giving support to the travelling showman. I have not yet heard any reason why it should be withdrawn. I do not know whether my noble friend is able to accept this Amendment at this stage. If my noble friend Lord Lyell cannot accept this Amendment, I would support Lady Vickers' plea to the Government that they should give some undertaking at this stage to try to allay the undoubted anxiety of those outside the House.

Lord HALE

My Lords, I rise only to associate myself with the admirable speech made by the noble Baroness and with the support given by the noble Earl. This class of people of course has a special affection in the hearts of some of us, if not in the hearts of all local councils. The modification the noble Baroness has made, the redrafting and narrowing of the clause moved on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has gone quite a long way to removing any theoretical objections which were made in the course of the debate. I am not sure whether it is in order to remind your Lordships that on the last Division the Amendment of Lord Brooke was defeated by a single vote, and I think rather surprisingly. It would be an action much in the spirit in which this Bill has been moved if this Amendment, relatively small, applying to a special class under special circumstances, were conceded without argument.

Lord LYELL

My Lords, first of all I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Vickers, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for their contributions, and particularly for the clarity with which my noble friend spelled out her Amendment. This particular Amendment is similar—although it is redrafted, and for the purposes of the Bill it is milder—to the Amendment moved at art earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. This was aimed at trying to secure that travelling showmen should have special exemption from this stop notice action I am proposing in the Bill in respect of the storage and the parking, to use that term, of their equipment on any land which is being used as winter quarters, but as well as that protection which is afforded them by Clause 1 in respect of land used as a caravan site.

There is one awkward aspect to the Amendment. It is extremely doubtful whether the Amendment achieves the particular object which I think the whole House, and in particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, wish to achieve, since the Amendment expresses the exemption as applying to, the use of land as a caravan site". When we look at the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, we find the meaning of the term, "caravan site"; it means, … land on which a caravan is stationed for the purposes of human habitation and land which is used in conjunction with land on which a caravan is so stationed". As we understand it, this Amendment does not cover the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. There are two points which I should like to make. By the Amendment which we have just made to Clause 1 and the Amendments which are to follow, we hope to clarify the Bill's provisions with regard to the service of any stop notice, and indeed the effect of the 12-month limitation which is set out in subsection (2) of the new Section 90 in Clause 1.

Where the authority consider that there has been a breach of planning control, they may in the normal run of events serve an enforcement notice, and when they do this they have to take account of the criteria set out in Section 87 of the Act. If, having done this, they consider it expedient in the public interest to go further—and that would probably be in reply to pleas from individuals or groups in particular areas of the countryside—and to stop the use of one or more particular activity more quickly than would be possible under the enforcement procedure, then they are entitled to serve a stop notice.

Secondly, if the later Amendments are accepted, we shall find that the travelling showman would be covered, in that if he has used any land as winter quarters on any one occasion more than 12 months previously, then, like anyone else, he will be protected from the stop notice action in respect of using that land as winter quarters. He will be outside the scope of the Bill. Cases have been cited eloquently, both at this stage and at the earlier stage, by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers; the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, also expressed strong support for the showmen, saying how responsible they were. We believe that the showman would not be subject to the stop notice action if he had used land as winter quarters for at least the previous winter season.

Special provision has also been made in other enactments for travelling showmen to be able to use land for the stationing of their caravans for the purpose of human habitation; that is, for parking their own residential caravans. We hope that this Bill carries forward this principle by ensuring that they certainly cannot be made homeless at short notice. All of us know, responsible organisations such as the Showmen's Guild know, that under the system of planning control we have at the moment neither ownership nor the owner's permission to occupy land for any purpose—even leaving their equipment dormant and inactive over the winter season—frees the owner of the equipment from the requirement of obtaining planning permission if permission for such use is required.

All of us in your Lordships' House are aware that members of the Showmen's Guild aim to comply with all the laws relating to the use of land for any purpose, whether for setting up a funfair or for using the land as quarters. I appreciate, and I believe the Government appreciate, that they will face a particular problem if traditional winter quarter sites are lost, through redevelopment or rezoning, or possibly through objections that the site has become too crowded and there are too many caravans on the one site. Therefore, it might become unsuitable, too crowded and cause a particular problem to neighbours.

I believe that when such a thing happens it is incumbent on showmen—and particularly the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain—to do their best to ensure that even if all the normal planning procedures cannot be completed in the time available—and I believe that with such a responsible organisation there will not be much difficulty between the Showmen's Guild and the planning authorities—they will be able to make their peace with the particular planning authority over any emergency use of a new site if they have lost the original site.

I want particularly to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that there are already safeguards in the Bill against showmen being separated from their equipment at short notice. First, where a traditional site for showmen is lost, the local planning authority should be consulted quickly. I believe that that local planning authority will give urgent consideration to any difficulties that might arise through the traditional winter quarters being lost for any reason.

Secondly, Amendment No. 1, which is in my name and which the House has accepted, deals with the local authority and, above all, with the expediency of issuing a stop notice in relation to any activity. The consideration as to the issue of such a notice is entirely separate, and I believe that in practice it is more exacting than the consideration of an enforcement notice, which has much broader application.

Finally, where showmen, and especially the Showmen's Guild, adopt the attitude which was envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Bacon, at an earlier stage, I can see no difficulties for showmen as a result of my Bill. I do not think that this is likely to be the only type of case in which there may be such a close link between activities which are immune from stop action and others which are not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, promised in previous stages of our debate that guidance would be given to local planning authorities on the exercise of these powers. I think it is likely that the Department of the noble Baroness would be ready and able to cover the point in a general way without making a special case for any class of person. As the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, pointed out, it is not the carrying on of a business which is specially at issue in the Bill, although I know that it is mentioned; it is the parking and the obstruction which could be caused by a great number of caravans in a place which had started as a fairly small winter quarters site for perhaps a family. A different chain of circumstances could arise where a large number of caravans and other families of showmen might wish to use a particular site. In that case I believe that further consultations would be required between all the showmen on the site and the local planning authority.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, will be able to consider the points and the safeguards that I have mentioned. I do not believe that there is any great ground between us on the question of showmen and how they will be treated as a result of the enactment of the Bill. I hope that I have stilled her worst fears and even her minor fears. As it is at present drafted, Amendment No. 4 will not achieve what the noble Baroness has in mind. Therefore, I cannot say that I can accept it.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, put her Amendment extremely fairly. She acknowledges that there are problems about it. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has also clearly explained at some length—and I shall not go over it again—why the Amendment does not do what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, wishes. A great many of her fears should have been assuaged because other Amendments have been moved and carried, and the point about the 12 months has been dealt with.

The noble Baroness made a specific point to me about the circular. I can certainly assure her that the circular will give advice along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has suggested. Perhaps I can give the gist of it, although these will probably not be the words used: In some cases in which a stop notice could be served in respect of an activity which is so closely connected with another which is immune from stop notice action, there would need to be special justification for a service of a stop notice". I should have thought that that, together with all the points and safeguards that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, covers the point. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it does. I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this. Beyond this we cannot go because we should then find ourselves in the area which both the noble Lord and I vigorously opposed in Committee. I hope that that covers the points made by the noble Baroness so that she will accept my remarks and withdraw her Amendment.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for their explanations. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied, but when the showmen read it perhaps it will ease their minds a little. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.17 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 11, leave out ("an activity being carried out on land") and insert ("the period during which an activity has been carried out on land (whether continuously or otherwise)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, perhaps I could discuss Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These two Amendments are the result of doubts which were expressed at an earlier stage in Committee as to whether the wording the clause precluded a stop notice being served in respect of occasional or seasonal activities on any land which first took place more than 12 months earlier. The Amendments do no more than explain the original intention, but the insertion into the clause of an explicit reference to the continuity or otherwise of an activity removes any room for doubt, and that is what we seek.

The first Amendment makes it quite clear that the stop notice may not be served in relation to occasional, intermittent or seasonal activity which is being carried out on the land if that activity first began more than 12 months earlier. The second Amendment is a purely consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.19 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 13, leave out ("continuing") and insert ("carrying out").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 3, line 33, at end insert— ("(10) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice shall be construed in accordance with section 89(6) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These, again, are purely drafting Amendments which we have made in order to meet some arguments which were made at an earlier stage. Subsection 4(b) of Section 90 of the 1971 Act, which is set out in Clause 1 of the Bill, provides for a stop notice to cease to have effect at the end of the period allowed for compliance with the enforcement notice and not, as hitherto, when the enforcement notice takes effect.

It is necessary to have a provision explaining what this phrase means because the local planning authorities have the power under Section 89(6) of the Act to extend the period for compliance. At present Clause 1(2) achieves this simply by adding a reference to Section 90 in Section 89(6) of the Act, where the phrase is defined for the purposes of Section 89.

The noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed this out in Committee, and he stressed particularly that this was less convenient to people who might be using the Bill than would be a provision which defined the phrase separately for the purposes of Section 90. These two Amendments meet that point. The present Clause 1(2) is replaced by a provision inserting a new subsection to Section 90 of the Act, which is set out in Clause 1, providing that any reference in Section 90 to the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice shall be construed in accordance with Section 89(6) of the Act. That is complicated. I apologise to the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment, and I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.