§ House again in Committee on Clause 76.
§ [Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
944§ Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 197:
§
Page 66, line 29, at end insert—
("Provided that no such fee shall be payable for any application to carry out development or work which would otherwise have been permitted were it not solely for the fact that the application is in respect of:—
§
The noble Lord said: Now that we have had a fairly full discussion on the principles behind charging for planning fees, I shall reserve what I have to say on that matter—and I may say that I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had to say—until we have the debate on the Question, Whether the clause stand shall part? Clause 76 is an enabling clause, and it is widely drawn. It enables the Secretary of State to prescribe a fee in respect of
any permission, consent, approval, determination or certificate";
and also, as the Bill stands at present, in respect of any appeal to him, but I gather that this may come out of the Bill. Yet the consultation document appears to contemplate only a fee for actual planning permission. Listed building consent, tree preservation order consent, conservation area and special development area approval would, it seems, not be subject to a fee. Nevertheless, as the Bill is now drafted, the power is there to charge in such cases.
§ For reasons which I shall explain, I believe that fees for some of the consents to which I have just referred should not be payable, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide that charges shall not be levied on applications in respect of property when an application would not normally be required had the property not got attached to it some conservation label. Many categories of property have special planning designations because they are of amenity interest or are important to the heritage. The owners sometimes have to make special applications which 945 would have been unnecessary had their property not been subject to the designation. For instance, the owner of a listed building wishing to enlarge his house within the tolerance of the general development order will, merely because it is listed, need consent from the planning authority, and under this Bill he might have to pay a fee.
§ Such a charge does not seem to me to be fair, nor does it seem to me to be in the interests of amenity. First, surely there should be a balance of justice between individual members of the public. As the Bill now stands, some individuals would be charged and some would not for carrying out virtually identical developments. Secondly, I very much doubt whether the public interest in conservation is best served by increasing the burdens on owners of amenity property, who have enough obligations and burdens already. If anything, such burdens should be eased, and not the reverse.
§ This amendment would exempt from fees planning applications in four separate categories. The first is listed buildings, where you have to apply to the planning authority virtually every time you do any work on them. An application for listed building consent is necessary even where minor alterations are made to a house which would otherwise have been permitted had it not been listed. Secondly, it would exempt land designated as a conservation area. In those areas buildings are protected as if they were listed, and apart from a few exceptions they may not be demolished except with listed building consent—and here the same arguments apply. I hasten to say that I have no quarrel whatever with the restraints in themselves. It is the unevenness of treatment which is objectionable, once you start charging fees.
§ Thirdly, Article 4 of the general development order enables directions to be made prohibiting development which would otherwise be permitted under the GDO. If the public wants planning restrictions to be placed on development in certain specific areas—and I have no objection in principle—then the public should pay, and private industry, be it agriculture or anything else, should not have to bear the extra burden in these exceptional cases. Fourthly, the special development order of 1950 requires owners who intend 946 to put up agricultural or forestry buildings, which would otherwise be permitted, to give to the local authority 14 days' notice in writing of their intention to do so and this gives the local authority the opportunity to require the applicant to receive their approval with respect to the design and external appearance of the building before any development is started. The special development order applies to specified areas in national parks, and I and your Lordships are presumably in favour of this restraint. But once you start charging fees for applications for approval, you place an undue burden on people with enough difficulties already by reason of the special geographical location of their businesses.
§ I should be most grateful for anything that my noble friend Lord Bellwin can tell me about the Government's intentions in regard to applications falling into the categories listed in this amendment, for two reasons. First of all, it is not clear from the consultation document how these are to be treated. Nor is it clear why, if they are to be excluded, it is necessary to draft the clause in the Bill so widely. Perhaps my noble friend would enlighten me on that point. Secondly, it may be that my noble friend will tell me that this kind of detailed amendment is better reserved for the regulations to be made under Clause 76. So it would be most helpful to me in deciding how to proceed with this amendment if I could elicit from the Government some indication as to whether such regulations would be likely to take into account the matters that I have raised. I beg to move.
§ Baroness BIRKI should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. It is not very often that we see eye to eye on these matters, but on this occasion, particularly as far as subsections (1) and (2) are concerned, I entirely agree with him and I think he is absolutely right. One of the problems—and I found this when I was a Minister in the department where the noble Lord the Minister is now—always was to get people to take care of the listed buildings and to use them; and if, in doing so, they need planning permission to make it more comfortable or to enlarge them, or to do some sort of work on them, and they have to pay a charge for that permission, I think this could act as a very strong 947 deterrent to the survival of our listed buildings, which, as we all know, are an important part of our heritage.
It is so difficult—I cannot stress this enough—to keep these listed buildings within the living community, so that they are being used, and not only are being used but are being kept in good repair. I hope the Minister is going to tell us (because, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, says, the consultation document leaves it very wide and very open) that in fact they will be exempt, but I feel rather as Lord Middleton does. I think that an area as important as this—and I also include land which is designated as a conservation area—needs to be spelt out. Since in the case of this Bill (and I shall return to this later on in the proceedings) I think the Government are to be congratulated on some of the provisions they have included for listed buildings and conservation areas, it would be a great pity, I think, if this amendment was not accepted, unless the Minister can explain to us that in fact there is no need for Lord Middleton or myself, or other noble Lords on whichever side of the Committee who are concerned with these matters, to be worried about the situation.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEBefore the Minister replies, I think that the Association of County Councils would welcome the general feeling behind these amendments. May I ask the Minister whether the national parks would be included in this? Is there a special onus on people who live in national parks to develop in accordance with the national parks policy? I think it is important that this should be included if possible.
§ Lord BELLWINAs I said earlier when we were speaking on this in the broader context, there are a number of details that we will gladly talk about; and people would like to do so for many reasons. On this aspect of the proposals to charge, I think we are probably not too far apart. First, we have no intention of charging for listed building consents nor for approvals required under the Landscape Areas Special Development Order. We will look again with sympathy at the circumstances in which a developer would attract a liability to charge because of an article for direction or because of the 948 proposed exemption of conservation areas from proposed changes in the size limits of development permitted under the GDO. We shall see to what extent it is possible to frame regulations so as to afford the relief that my noble friend has in mind without over-complicating or obscuring the scheme.
I hope that this is the feel that your Lordships will get from what I am saying on this aspect of charging. We feel that there are certain matters, some of which come within these amendments, which properly are to be decided in the context of regulations to be made under the enabling power which will set out the scheme for charging and on which there will be further opportunity for discussion. We want to keep the scheme simple. The more complications and the more exceptions we make to it, the more likely it is that things will go wrong and anomalies will arise and that the scheme will become expensive to administer. So far as this amendment is concerned, I think that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment. I have been able to cover his points. Would that I felt so confident in covering other points which may come under other amendments!
§ Baroness BIRKBefore the Minister finishes I should like to ask a question. He said that there will be no charges for listed buildings consent. I am talking about where there is a planning application to incorporate the listed building in some form of development, and not just listed buildings consent. I have in mind the building which should be restored and held. The noble Lord mentioned only listed buildings consent. Can he expand on that?
§ Lord BELLWINI am open to any points that noble Lords may wish to make. I am trying to stress that this is an area where there is scope for discussion and we will see whether we ought to do something that we are not doing. We want to know this. This is open to discussion at the moment. We have an open mind on this. We want the best we can get in the best way we can get it; and I would listen to any suggestions made.
§ Lord SANDFORDI think that we can feel reasonably satisfied that the general approach to this as expounded by my 949 noble friend is right. We should all be glad to know that he is going to be generous when it comes to listed buildings, conservation areas and so on. On the other hand, when it comes to the generality of planning applications, I would urge that we do not want too many exceptions if the whole object of this exercise is not to lose its purpose. I should be content to leave to regulations this particular matter that my noble friend has aired, particularly as on page 67 of the Bill, in subsection (6), we see that this particular matter has to be approved by Parliament by Affirmative Resolution.
§ Lord MIDDLETONI am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Bellwin has said. I appreciate what he said about this Government's intentions, with which I am happy. The fact remains that the power remains in the Bill. It is a widely-drawn clause and what might happen at some future date I hate to think. However, in view of what he has said, I should like to look carefully and read what he has had to say in Hansard, I believe that these assurances will be sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.16 p.m.
§ Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 198:
§
Page 66, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, in fixing fees the Secretary of State shall have regard to the total annual cost of the service provided by local planning authorities and no fee shall be so fixed that in any year the sum of the fees collected exceeds the cost of performing that service.").
§ The noble Lord said: I have been restraining myself. At one stage I nearly broke the restraint but was restrained by Lord Wigoder. I believe that we should talk to these amendments and disclose our true views about this clause on the Question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. However, to take my particular amendment, its purpose is to look forward to the future, because we have a fear that in future years the intentions of this particular clause within the Bill may be forgotten and the provision might be abused to provide a source of revenue unrelated to service. That is the point about this clause. It is to make 950 sure that local government does not spend too much money on providing a service which is not repaid by the people who use it.
§ So long as it is that way, that makes sense; but when it gets to the future it could be that those in authority will seek something different. We have heard that the amounts that at the moment the Government propose to charge for these various services are relatively modest; but we cannot be sure that in the future this will not enter yet another taxation system. This has happened before and it could happen again. We know from the experience of charging for nuclear installations inspections that this is not a fear totally without foundation. The object of this amendment is to put a restraint on Government through to the future to make sure that the costs charged do not exceed the costs of the services.
§ It seems to me that this amendment is a totally reasonable one and one that this Government would not be at all disposed to resist. I would hope therefore that my noble friend would see his way to accepting the amendment. Perhaps it is not technically perfect as to wording and could be improved, but the principle of the thing is to make sure that, as the years go by, the principle of this clause, which is to pay for services rendered, is restrained within that limit. I would hope that my noble friend could give me encouragement or suggest better wording himself; but, better still, to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDYSThe fear has been expressed that the existence of the enabling power for planning charges in Clause 76 could provide this or some future Government with a means of taxation which could be used in a way which would have a particularly damaging effect on the construction industry or the situation at the time. Let me begin by making it clear that that is the reverse of the Government's intention. The purpose of planning charges is to remove part of the cost of financing the planning services from taxation and to finance it instead from a charge to the applicant. My noble friend Lord Bellwin has explained this in detail. Even were we to attempt to use the power for other purposes—and we have no intention of so doing—noble Lords would 951 ensure that that would not come to pass. Any charges to be imposed under Clause 76 will require an Affirmative Resolution of this House. I confirm that and I am sure it will be of interest, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who displays such an interest in Affirmative Resolutions.
§ Baroness BIRKI am sorry to interrupt, but I feel lost. Is the noble Lord replying to the same amendment as the amendment that was moved?
§ Lord SANDYSI am replying in some detail to this amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Perhaps the noble Baroness was looking at the next amendment.
To those who fear what a future Government could do with such a power, this amendment could offer little comfort: there is no shortage of powers open to Governments to tax economic activity in general or property development in particular. The wording of the amendment could, however, create difficulties for even a genuine fee aimed at recovering no more than the cost of a service. This is the intention of the amendment. Any scale of fees that this Government introduce will aim to be as simple as possible in the interests of keeping down the costs of administration. That inevitably means some element of swings and roundabouts. Some applicants might pay rather more, and others might pay rather less, than the actual cost of processing their case. Equally, some local authorities will recover a greater, others a lesser proportion of the cost of the service they provide—depending, among other things, on the composition of their caseload and their efficiency. It seems to me that the amendment, as it is worded, could give grounds for inhibiting the simple approach. I hope that in the light of the assurances I have given, the noble Lord may feel disposed to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONWould it not be the case, if the legislation goes through as drafted, without taking into account the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that administratively each district authority over the country as a whole would have to take on an average of three more 952 officials to deal with the administration of the financing of these applications? Is it not also true that while this is talked of as being a means of saving money, in fact it is a means of transferring money from the public sector to the private sector? It is not really my duty to tell the Government what they ought to do; I am just indicating where they are going wrong. If they are seeking to cover these costs, would it not be better if they did something with the development land tax, which is the way the people who make successful applications for planning consents pay for the privilege of doing that, rather than involving themselves at huge administrative cost and huge addition to the number of public servants in the public sector who will have to be employed as a result of this legislation?
§ Lord SANDYSWith due respect—and I do mean with due respect in this case—to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, he is confusing a number of issues. The Government are at present reviewing the situation of the development land tax. Secondly, he has spoken of the question of transferring funds from the public sector into the private sector. Surely, in the case instanced by my noble friend Lord Bellwin—and he instanced the case of someone who sought a driving licence—there is a situation in which a fee is being charged for a public service. It is a very relevant comparison.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy noble friend said earlier that he hoped the assurances he had given would be sufficient to satisfy me. I really did not notice any assurances.
§ Lord SANDYSThe assurances are the assurances of the Government's intention. That should be good enough for my noble friend.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEI have lots of faith in the Government; but I have not any faith in a government that might be formed by other parties in this House. Cross-Benchers perhaps might form a government. Who knows? All of us have a fundamental suspicion of government. I suspect that even those in Government have a suspicion of government. I do not think that that assurance really counts for as much as it should do. I am concerned as to the future and what might happen. I quoted an example. I will read carefully what my noble friend 953 has said. I will think very hard before deciding whether or not to put down an amendment on these lines at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.27 p.m.
§ Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 199:
§
Page 66, line 42, at end insert—
("(c) of 10 per cent. of the prescribed fees received in respect of any description of application by an authority in England or Wales to whom applications fall to be made to the highway authority consulted by that authority.").
§ The noble Viscount said: This has been a highly messy and unsatisfactory debate so far, interrupted by our refreshment. I have not had an answer yet to Amendments Nos. 195 and 196—probably because, as it is so powerful, my case is unanswerable. Nor have I had a chance to say what I think about the amendment to leave out Clause 76. I will come back on that.
§ I am concerned with this fairly simple point: If the introduction of fees for planning permission is agreed and decided upon by the Government, it must be recognised that in nearly all planning applications there is a considerable involvement of the highways authority, in that the highways authority is often put to a great deal of trouble and expense in helping to determine whether an application is acceptable or not. There are things to do with road safety, sight lines, improvements and so forth, and there is also consideration of future sight lines for roads wanted by the community. I will not waste time on this, but if there is to be a charge for planning permission applications, then it is only fair that the highways authority, which will need to put in a lot of time on this, should receive some percentage of these fees. For the sake of argument, I suggest that 10 per cent. is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
§ Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALEI hope that the general confusion will provide me with an opportunity to apologise for misleading the Committee at an earlier stage. I said that the AMA was opposed to this proposal. I was wrong then; they are wrong now, but I apologise.
§ Lord SANDYSAs my noble friend Lord Ridley chided the Committee and possibly the Government with having a messy discussion, my response could be this: In making that suggestion he omitted to explain his amendment in very much detail to the Committee. I might remedy that by informing the Committee of the purpose of this amendment. The effect of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing that 10 per cent. of the fees received by district councils from planning charges should be passed to the county highway authority they consult.
I cannot accept that the administrative expense involved in this proposal would justify any benefits to be achieved by it. We have accepted the principle that where counties decide planning applications relating to county matters, they shall receive the fee. But if the county is also to receive a proportion of the receipts for being consulted as highway authority, why should other organisations which are consulted not receive a proportion of the receipts, too? Why should the water authority, or the parish council or the National Coal Board or any other body consulted not also receive their share? The accounting complexity and paper-passing which would result would be of benefit to no one.
I suspect that the motivation for this amendment may also reflect a misunderstanding of these fees. They are not a means of increasing the resources available to local authorities. In estimating local authorities' expenditure for public expenditure purposes and for the calculation of grant, the receipts from charges will be fully taken account of. We do not, therefore, expect to see any increase in planning expenditure as a result of fees. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend may feel disposed to withdraw the amendment.
§ Viscount RIDLEYI am not disposed, but I will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.31 p.m.
§
Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 66, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
§ The noble Lord said: The secret is out. 955 My noble friend the Minister disclosed that he would accept this amendment and, just in case anybody missed it, my cosponsor the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made sure that everybody realised. However, I am doggedly going to justify this amendment, because it would be useful for the record so to do. It will not take very long, so I ask your Lordships not to settle back.
§ Whatever the merits for charging for planning applications, the idea of charging for appeals is simply wrong. It would be rationing justice by the purse and deterring applicants from lodging appeals even when they had good grounds for so doing. The right to appeal to the Minister is a vital and valuable part of United Kingdom planning law. It inevitably involves the appellant in considerable expense, and it would be unfair to impose an additional financial burden on him. That is the justification for the amendment. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is going to accept it, but I am very sad that his advisers had cause to put this in the Bill in the first place. I beg to move.
§ Lord MISHCONI do not propose to detain the Committee with any word at all in regard to the acceptance of this amendment, which I am glad to see. I was only going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that, in the same way as he wishes his views to be put on record for posterity, I hope he will remember that he has not done that in the Division Lobbies of this Committee.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 67, line 2, leave out ("or refunding").
§ The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that the Secretary of State has provided scope in the present wording of the Bill for introducing the concept of the refunding of fees. The district councils, who handle the greatest bulk of all these planning applications, have looked into the whole question of the refunding of fees and have come conclusively to the view that, on balance, there is very little advantage and an enormous number of difficulties in allowing such a thing to occur. Even to be provided with the discretion to make refunds will, in their view, be likely to cause much 956 more trouble than it is worth. The whole idea of having refunds is almost certain, in their view, to lead to very considerable abuse. I should therefore like to move this as a probing amendment, to see whether Her Majesty's Government have come to the same view. I beg to move.
§ Lord RENTONI wonder whether I may inquire out of my ignorance what is the difference, in these circumstances, between "remission" and "refunding"? There no doubt is a difference; otherwise, presumably, the draftsman would not have used both expressions. But what is the difference?
§ Lord SANDYSIn response to the last question I shall have to take legal advice, because my noble friend is such a great expert in this field. I hope that he may be satisfied with that reply for the time being.
My noble friend Lord Sandford said that the authorities concerned with this amendment have reached their view conclusively. The Government are totally of the opposite opinion, and the result is that in the detailed proposals for planning charges which the department have issued for consultation we have not proposed any provision for refunds. I am aware of the arguments that any system of refund would lead to greater complexity and cost of administration. Nevertheless, we have received representations suggesting various categories of refund and I think that these should be considered on their merits. Nor am I confident that we can be sure of getting the charges right for all time at our first attempt.
I should not like to be without the power to prescribe refunds, if practice showed that there were cases where they would be the best way of dealing with particular problems or anomalies which are at present unforeseen. We are dealing with a completely new clause and a completely new principle and I am sure that that is entirely understood.
But my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was very clear in Standing Committee D at column 2214 of the Official Report of 17th April. These are his words:
We should like to retain the words, 'or refunding' because we want to keep some flexibility in this part of the Bill when the regulations are 957 being drawn up. We take the view that there could be circumstances occasionally of a rare nature where it might be that a refund should be made to the applicant for planning permission.The words of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State reflect exactly the Government's view in this case.We are working in a new field. The principle that a refund should be a reserve power to the Secretary of State is one which is very well established. This is a situation which is providing not a power within a local authority for a refund, but a power for the Secretary of State to exercise when he makes general arrangements for that purpose. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord SANDFORDYes, I think I do, so long as I can be quite clear that my noble friend is saying that his view is the same as ours at the moment. He does not see the case for introducing refunds when the regulations are first introduced, but he wants to retain the power to provide for refunds if in the future, in some rare cases, the need for them should appear. Is that understanding correct because, if so, I shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord SANDYSYes. In general terms, that is acceptable. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of replying to the question about the difference between "remission" and "refunding". In shorthand, a "remission" means that you do not have to pay and a "refunding" means that you get it back.
§ Lord SANDFORDWith that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.39 p.m.
§
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 67, line 3, at end insert ("and shall provide for the remission of the prescribed fee in cases where the applicant (not being a body corporate) is the beneficial owner of the premises to which the application relates, and the premises do not exceed one hectare in extent.")
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigoder and myself, to which he referred in the general debate 958 on this clause, which seems like yesterday, but was, in fact, about two hours ago. I think my noble friend made it perfectly clear that we are concerned about the small applicant with the small planning consent, and with trying to exempt him from the costs which the Government seek to place on applicants for planning permission.
§ May I say, first, that my noble friends and I on these Benches take the view that Clause 76 should be left out. If I had not been elbowed out in the crush to back the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to leave it out, my name would be there on the Marshalled List. But there are so many people who are anxious to leave out the clause that my name is probably about sixty-seventh on the list to do so.
§ In the event that the Government do not agree to leave out Clause 76, I thought that it would be valuable to seek to make an exemption for the smaller kind of application which comes to the average planning committee. I should mention that my honourable friend Mr. Stephen Ross, at Report stage in another place, moved the exclusion of what was the equivalent of Clause 76. He made the point, which I make now, that if we are talking of imposing a bill of a fair amount, £30 to £45 per person applying for a fairly small planning consent, in addition to the bill he is going to have to pay for byelaw consent, which is about £200 for a £25,000 house, and if he is fortunate enough to be also going to have to pay development land tax, there will be a situation where many people who should be applying for planning consent for a small application—individuals, not limited companies, as noble Lords will see from the amendment—just do not go to the trouble of applying for planning consent. Any of your Lordships who have been engaged in local government on planning committees know the enormous backlog there is at the moment, under the present law, without any fee, in enforcing planning procedures against people who have not taken the trouble of applying for planning consent. In very many cases years pass, and in many cases no action is taken against people who have carried out development without planning consent.
§ I suspect that for the smaller application of the nature we seek to exempt in this clause there will be a very much larger 959 number of people who do not go to the trouble of applying for a planning consent. This will result either in the law being flouted or in the appointment of a whole new army of enforcement officers to check on whether or not people have applied for planning consents. In the smaller application of this kind we are not talking about the person who is going to make a large profit on the development of a housing estate, which is a different matter; we are talking about a person who is developing perhaps the garden of his house, or whatever.
§ It seems to me that this is an area where in all conscience the small man, the small developer, the individual who is seeking either to make alterations to his house or to develop his garden, should be exempted from paying a charge for a planning application. If he is not exempted there will be a lot of avoidance of seeking applications. My honourable friend in another place used a vulgar expression to describe the gesture the small man would make to the planning authority. I think that would happen in a very large number of cases. In the other very important sense, exempting this group of people from the fee would cut down an enormous amount of work that would have to be done in the planning department of the local authority.
§ The noble Lord the Minister made a point, which I do not think is a parallel, about having to apply for a driving licence if one wishes to drive a car. Since he has chosen that analogy I would suggest to him that, while one has to have a driving licence to drive a car because it is a big and dangerous vehicle, one does not have to have a driving licence to drive a bicycle. Really, this is an exemption to exempt the cyclist as against the motorist. I invite your Lordships, on the Minister's analogy, to agree with me. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINI wonder what the noble Lord would have said as to motor cycles; but that is another point. The first point I should make is that these matters are properly left to the regulations and not to the enabling power. Your Lordships will have ample opportunity to debate such points as these when the regulations, which are subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, are laid. In setting a scale of charges under the powers of Clause 76 we should certainly 960 need to take care that the levels we set were not an unfair burden. In considering such regulations, noble Lords would ensure that we did so. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that over half of all planning applications are for house extensions and other such domestic developments. Many other applications will be for developments where the owner of the premises is an individual rather than a company or organisation. The point I made earlier is absolutely valid. We are giving an extension to the GDL, which takes in so many of the applications that are made, from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. without the need for a planning application at all. It is very interesting to contemplate what that will do to the total number of planning applications that are made in any case.
We are anxious to avoid burdening the individual and it seems to me that in the circumstances, if we were to accept this amendment, the financial burden of the planning system would fall entirely on the company sector. At a time when our future depends so heavily on creating the conditions for economic development this seems to me a short-sighted policy. The individual does not gain in the end. The costs to an organisation are felt ultimately by the individual, as its customer or its employee.
From the wording of the amendment, I am not clear precisely how far the exemption would extend. For example, "beneficial owner" is not a term which is defined in planning legislation; nor is "premises". Though normally understood in everyday language to mean buildings, it has sometimes been interpreted by the courts in other ways. It might be held that for the purposes of Clause 76 it included land without buildings. The result of that would be that someone seeking to develop a field for a couple of acres of housing, the total worth of which could well exceed £300,000, could be exempt from charges. I wonder whether that is what the noble Lord has in mind; I suspect it is not. I would ask your Lordships not to accept this amendment. In so doing I repeat my assurance that in framing scales of charges we shall wish to structure them in a way which will not be an unreasonable burden to the individual, and that there will be further opportunity to discuss such matters when the regulations are debated.
§ Lord ROSS of MARNOCKI hope the Minister will realise that when we come to discuss regulations, be it on an affirmative or a negative motion, the one thing we cannot do is amend them. From that point of view it would be far better to get into the Bill some sensible exception to cover specific types of operation. For that reason, I would certainly support this amendment. There is no other one before us.
§ Lord UNDERHILLWhat the noble Lord the Minister has said is surely justification for opposing the inclusion of this clause in its entirety, because if I listened correctly to the noble Lord he said that we just cannot chuck the whole cost of this on to the big developers. Therefore it means, in effect, that the Government have in mind making a charge on the small householder; and, as has been made quite clear, 50 percent. of the applications are for the small householder. It seems to me that this is a justification for opposing the clause in its entirety.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERFollowing the point, which I myself was about to make but which was made much better by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the Minister's comment on the regulations, may I ask him this: If he wishes seriously to rest on that point, will he give an assurance now that when the regulations are brought forward, if they are ever brought forward under these proposals, they will exclude these small properties, as suggested in this amendment? As the noble Lord has said, this is the last opportunity—perhaps it will be the Report stage—for your Lordships to assert yourselves on this matter, because we cannot amend regulations. If I may take that point one degree further, we are entitled to reject an Affirmative Resolution—and this House has done it—but in a matter of this sort, which in a way is a measure for raising taxation, it might well be argued, and I myself would have some hesitations, as to whether this House was really morally justified in resisting the regulation. So we come back to this. If the Minister is to have this power can he give an assurance as to how it is going to be exercised?
§ 8.50 p.m.
§ Lord BELLWINNo, at this moment I 962 cannot do that because I do not have the details before me. Certainly we can think about it and we shall gladly do so. However, we keep coming back to whether we approve the principle of what we are doing. It is very difficult to make an effective clause stand part speech, but I tried to explain why I felt it was not unfair that we should do this. I mentioned a sum of money which my noble friend said set me right in between the two prongs, at some £30 million. I felt that it was not unreasonable to make this kind of charge. Somebody has to pay, in any case. There is no doubt that somebody is going to pay all the way down the line, particularly so far as the small householder is concerned. We must bear in mind that we were talking about £30 on £1,000 and £40 on thousands of pounds. We should keep all this in perspective. We could talk of charges as though they were a massive new imposition, but it is not that at all. Yet in totality it is sufficient to be significant. However, in my opinion the protection for many of the small people to whom this amendment refers come from the fact that there has been a significant extension of the GDL, of the right to increase the works that people do on their house by some 50 per cent. more than now without a planning application. I cannot give the details which my noble friend requests, but I undertake to look at that aspect of it, only because I do not have the answers now.
§ Viscount SIMONIs the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that if one is unhappy enough to live in a national park one has to obtain planning permission for the smallest alteration to a house? People I know who wanted to put up a small porch on their door, which was probably not going to cost as much as £30, have had to pay £30 to get planning permission.
§ Lord BELLWINWhen the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, raised this point, I intimated that this was an area we ought to look at on its own, and that we will certainly do.
§ Lord RENTONI wonder whether my noble friend would heed the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and bear also in mind that the Government are surely going to have to make up 963 their minds on the policy decision before very long. One hopes it will not take them very long to make up their minds—perhaps in the next few days. If they do make up their minds, it would give much greater satisfaction to your Lordships on both sides of the Committee if it were written into the Bill instead of being left to the uncertainty of a regulation.
§ Lord BELLWINI think that is a very fair suggestion, and with that well in mind I will certainly take the point away and see what I can do about it.
§ Lord BYERSI wonder whether I may press the noble Lord and ask him whether that means he would be prepared to come forward with a properly structured amendment at Report?
§ Lord BELLWINI cannot go further than I have already gone. I believe that important points have been made. While I cannot accept the amendment, a method of work I have adopted with the many amendments I have had to different Bills is to take them away and think very seriously about them. If we feel we can meet the points made, one way or another we try to do something about it. But if I cannot do so, I cannot. Then it will be for the noble Lord himself to decide what to do.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHAs the noble Lord will be aware, there is a very substantial feeling in nearly all parts of the Committee about this amendment. Therefore I hope that before the next stage he will look at the matter with his right honourable friend. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is one of considerable importance—namely, that this is the last time that we shall be looking at the issue so far as this Bill is concerned. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter: it raises questions of propriety as to whether this House could reject the Affirmative Resolution when it comes before it. It is not good enough to say that we will wait until the regulations are made to find out what is going to be done. The House requires some form of guarantee at the next stage of the Bill. Speaking for myself and, I suspect, for many others, we very much hope that the Government will then come forward with a proper amendment on this point.
§ Lord SANDFORDIt would be very helpful if my noble friend could respond to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton and let us all see, before we allow the Bill to go, how the Government's thoughts are developing on the regulations. I hope that he will not go too far. These regulations will have to be laid and re-laid at not too infrequent intervals, in the light of a lot of things which will change from year to year. The first set of regulations will not remain in force for five or 10 years and I think that Parliament will have more than one occasion to look at each set of regulations and adjust them. Therefore it is a question of choosing a point somewhere between putting the regulations on the face of the Bill, which I do not think is practicable, and letting us see a little more than we can at the moment how the Government's thoughts are developing.
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONUntil about five minutes ago I had intended to divide your Lordships' Committee, but, in view of what the noble Lord, the Minister, has said and in view of the feeling which has been widely expressed on all sides of the Committee, I think that the right way to approach this would be to invite the noble Lord the Minister to bring forward an amendment which your Lordships could consider to protect the views that are widely held in the House about this area. If the Government do not bring forward such an amendment, I shall reserve my right to do so at Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.58 p.m.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 201A:
§
Page 67, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In all cases where the planning application is made by or on behalf of a person or firm in receipt of assistance under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, the applicant shall be entitled to a full refund.").
§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I listened to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with some hope. The notes which the Minister supplied on subsection (4) allow that regulations made under Section 1 or
965
Section 3 shall provide for the whole or partial remission or refund of fees. They continue:
As indicated by Ministers in Committee in the Commons, it is not at present intended that any provision for the refunding or remission of fees should be made, but this subsection is included in the clause to enable some provision to be made in the event of it becoming apparent at some future date that circumstances could arise in practice where it would be unjust for a charge to be made".
I believe that the debate which we have had has clearly demonstrated that in practice circumstances could arise in which it would be unjust for charges to be made. So at Clause 76, page 67, line 3, I wish to insert the amendment on the Marshalled List.
§ The reason is crystal clear—that local authorities, and the Government, are seeking to encourage industry, and small firms in particular, to regenerate the inner city areas. This is the cri de coeur all the time about business. It does not make sense to give them a grant under one Act and to take back part of it by imposing a fee under another. If the Government take the attitude already demonstrated by the Minister that this point will be covered in regulations, this will be satisfactory. Or there could be a caveat that this should be treated as a money Bill or as taxation. Consequently, we should be in a peculiar position. The Minister will need to consult with other authorities. The debate has been encouraging. Therefore I hope that the Minister can say something encouraging so that I do not have to force to a Division this amendment which I consider, despite its brevity, to be of vital importance to the small businessman.
§ Lord BELLWINI appreciate the noble Lord's concern that we should not, in charging for planning applications, place excessive burdens on those who are revitalising the inner urban areas. I am not sure that I would accept that the kinds of fees we are proposing would be a disincentive to anyone. I say again that we are tending to get this completely out of proportion. We are mixing the principle with the practical effects. Our aim in setting the level of charges is to ensure that they will not be a discouragement to development. I have noted the noble Lord's argument. The issue is one that we should consider in the context of 966 the regulations under Clause 76 and not the enabling power itself.
Your Lordships will have the opportunity to vote on the scale of charges, which will require an Affirmative Resolution of this House.
I should mention two technical points. The amendment refers only to planning applications while the enabling power in Clause 76 covers other planning consents and determinations as well. The noble Lord may also wish to consider that under his provision the person or firm concerned would first have to pay the fee and then have it refunded. He might wish to consider whether to argue, when the time comes, that such applicants should be exempted to begin with. He might prefer that. I cannot be so helpful on this. By itself, this is part of the total of what the clause is setting out to do. I would not have thought that the noble Lord would particularly want to press this amendment which, for the reasons given, we would not be able to accept.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKIn view of the noble Lord's more or less reasonable answer, I see no point in pressing for a Division at this time. I have listened carefully and I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 20IB:
§
Page 67, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Local planning authorities may remit or refund a prescribed fee in respect of an application relating to industrial development on land which for the time being is designated as an Assisted Area").
§ The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Northfield, who is unable to be with us today, I beg leave to move his amendment which is in similar terms but has a different bias to the one moved by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. I suspect we shall get a similar answer, but I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINThe noble Baroness is pretty right. There is not a lot of difference. I am very conscious of the risk that if we complicate the charging arrangements we shall create something which is expensive to administer—the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made earlier. The noble Baroness will be aware, for example, that 967 the boundaries of assisted areas do not coincide with the boundaries of local planning authorities. The local authority associations are not enthusiastic about operating discretionary refunds, which they fear will lead to a good deal of dispute and administrative work. Nevertheless, we shall weigh these arguments against the points made by the noble Baroness, before arriving at the final proposals we shall wish to make for the detailed regulations.
§ Baroness STEDMANI beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ 9.4 p.m.
Lord MORRISI hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will not hold the company that I keep against me. I would point out, however, that it was the noble Lords opposite who joined with me, and not I with them. Nevertheless, I welcome their company most warmly. We are joined in a matter of principle, above and beyond mere matters of partisan political ideology.
Before considering the merits or otherwise of charging applicants' planning fees, it is essential to consider the purpose of planning. The purpose of planning has rarely been better or more elegantly defined than by these words:
The purpose of planning is not to frustrate or get in the way of development. It is to reconcile, ideally if possible, and by compromise if not, conflicting demands on and policies affecting land use in a small crowded island which needs to protect its countryside and wildlife, promote its agriculture, improve its housing and social and leisure facilities, and regenerate its industrial base".It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that those are the words of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, stated in his speech opening the Second Reading debate upon this Bill.—[Official Report, 5/8/80; cols. 1337–38].Your Lordships will appreciate that implicit in these ringing words is that the major beneficiaries of planning law are the country as a whole, those who use the facility both directly and indirectly, both now and in future times—of whom the 968 applicant is only one. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Bellwin went on to say:
We also believe it right that those who stand to gain directly from planning decisions should contribute to the cost of making them".— [Col. 1338.]There are three implications inherent in the phrase:those who stand to gain directly from planning decisions".First, that those who take planning decisions are providing a service. Secondly, that there can only be one direct beneficiary of planning regulations; namely, the applicant. Thirdly, that the applicant necessarily stands to gain.To suggest to the planned that the planner, in raising a prohibition to improve or develop, is providing a service does not merit the dignity of any further examination. To suggest that there is only one beneficiary flowing from planning regulations and controls flies in the face of Her Majesty's Government's own definition of the purpose of planning. To suggest further that the applicant stands to gain when his application is refused must be met with derision. The only beneficiaries would be the lawyers, architects, civil engineers and the bureaucrats. Furthermore, if the application is granted the applicant, as we have seen, is only one of many beneficiaries, both directly and indirectly, now and in the future. In this context it should never be forgotten that where planning consent gives rise to profits this is at present dealt with through the development land tax, never forgetting the incidence in certain cases of capital gains tax.
The charges for planning control, it no doubt will be said, are linked with charges now applied to building control. One must recognise that some builders consider that the amount of inspection and work involved in building control is of some value to them. Following the Anns v. Merton decision, there is also a liability laid upon authorities, and builders may feel it worthwhile to have back-up insurance for themselves and their clients. In addition, there are fairly complex regulations in relation to building control and they ensure that the structures are built to safe standards.
But there is nothing in the area of planning control which actively compares 969 either with the work involved in building control or in the liability arising from any defects where local authorities are considered to have some responsibility. One apparent relationship between the proposed charges for planning control and those for building control is the consultative papers from the department estimating that each form of control costs around £50 million. I should like to ask the Minister how these figures have been arrived at and in addition what conclusions can be drawn as to the value of the control to the community and the percentage which the community should pay for the control exercised in its name and to its benefit.
I believe it is a matter of regret that Her Majesty's Government have chosen to ignore the learned societies and other organisations who formally objected to planning charges, charges which appear to be nothing other than a tax upon the enterprising. I find it astonishing that a Government wedded to the principle of creating a healthy environment for enterprise and consequent growth should consider this unstraightforward way of taxing development.
I endorse Her Majesty's Government's determination to cut public spending, but to do so by passing the cost of administering a planning service designed to benefit the public as a whole is unjust. The answer lies in the hands of the Government: less planning and what planning there is, administered and run efficiently and, above all, expeditiously. It is not only that I find the justification for this clause manifestly absurd and unjust; I, for one, bitterly regret that it should be a Conservative Administration which, wittingly or unwittingly, should seek to bring itself into disrepute by taxing endeavour and circumscribing enterprise. In the past noble Lords have demonstrated their ability not only to listen to the merits of a case but to act upon it in the voting Lobbies. I beseech your Lordships to persuade Her Majesty's Government to think again by doing likewise this evening.
§ Lord MISHCONThis ought not to be an appeal to a Conservative Administration or any political administration; it ought to be an appeal—if my noble friend Lord Morris will allow me to say so—to 970 the common sense of your Lordships. This House can so often be relied upon to use common sense when there is no need for party loyalties to be expressed. I put it in this way because the noble Lord the Minister made it perfectly clear that in his view no great principle was involved here. The Government were thinking in terms of this experiment, they came down with a view that an experiment was worth while, that this charge of planning fees was worth while and therefore it ought to be put into the Bill; and as I understand the position it has been left to your Lordships, free from any party loyalty or prejudice, to decide whether this innovation should find its way on to the statute book.
Equally, I think it is no way to persuade your Lordships to repeat arguments that have been advanced at length in the course of this debate. I should be very much of a defaulter if I did so because part of my plea, being heard in the first or second speech made in regard to this matter of the clause being left out, was that I should not have to repeat it and others would not have to repeat their remarks on the debate on the clause stand part. Succinctly I hope, in one minute I pray, to sum up the arguments as to why this Committee should go into the Division Lobbies (should that be necessary) on the Question, Whether the clause shall he left out.
First, it is an innovation. It has nothing parallel to a driving licence or anything of that kind. It is an encroachment upon the liberty of the individual who may own his little house or his big factory or whatever it may be, to charge him for what is after all the security of a public benefit. Secondly—and here I echo (with some pride I may say) the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—it is impracticable and it is wrong in practice to do this; and I am afraid the Minister did not find himself so conveniently in the middle of the charges total by way of what the Government may be able to collect. Without any doubt at all, when one is talking of collecting £30 million in one year one is at a pretty high level.
The third reason which is advanced against it is that it imposes hardship in individual cases. Briefly, it cannot be put right by exemptions in regulations which are going to come forward because 971 there will be so many arguments on the exemptions and the wording and the limits that the Government have not even made up their minds on how to do this. I should have said it was far better to leave out the clause and then, if the Government wanted to come back at Report stage with another clause listing all the exemptions which they think might get it back on the statute book, that would be the way to approach it, without the matter being deferred in this way. I think I can best get the support of the Committee—not, as I said, only that of my party, but of all sections of the Committee—on this commonsense matter by making a brief speech and urging that, if I may paraphrase Shakespeare, "If you have votes, prepare to use them now".
§ Lord MIDDLETONIn supporting my noble friend Lord Morris, may I first say that I am wholly in sympathy with and I applaud the efforts being made by this Government to control public expenditure, and I supported my own Government all last week in getting their crucial financial provisions through. As I said during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, any proposal that aims, as this one does, to recover £30 million of public expenditure must be looked at most carefully. However, I have to say that the more I look at this clause the less happy I feel about it, and I share many of the misgivings voiced earlier, and much more skilfully than I shall do, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
If I may very briefly take what my noble friend Lord Bellwin told us earlier this afternoon, he said it seemed to him perfectly reasonable that a developer should meet a part of the cost of development control. He dismissed the argument that since control is in the public interest it is the public who should pay for it. I do not think one can dismiss this argument as easily as that. The Government are saying in effect—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin said it—that planning is a service and the people who use it should pay for it. I will not repeat the points already made, but surely the development control system is not a service to the applicant for permission, but a service to the community, and if the public wish to enjoy the advantages of the planning system they should be prepared to meet the cost.
972 Earlier this evening Lord Mishcon referred to, and no doubt many noble Lords will have read, the correspondence in The Times during the summer on the proposals to charge fees for planning applications. I think Mr. Henney and Mr. Rose hit the nail on the head when they wrote:
Requiring payment for the return of an expropriated right is analogous to taking a man's wallet and demanding payment for its return".I do beg the Government very seriously, at this late stage of the Bill's progress, to consider whether this proposal, however laudable in its aim, to claw back some of the cost of administering the planning system, may not be, as I think it is, based on unsound reasoning and therefore not worthy to go forward in this Bill.
§ Viscount HANWORTHI have listened to the arguments put forward and I really do not think that any principle is involved in this. There is the question of finding the money to do this planning, and I think it is perfectly reasonable, with the reasonable fees that have been asked, that the people who want to build should pay. I really do not think this need become a major issue. We have got to have the money. It is reasonable that those who want to build should pay.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKI have listened to the arguments and everything seems to be missed. This Government got in and was supposed to help the small businessman, the small shopkeeper. Say I am developing my little shop in a little Welsh village, and trying to compete with supermarkets, and I put up a new window, do I have to pay for the planning? If I have a little house and I want to build a little gazebo at the bottom of the garden to watch my trees, I have to pay for the planning. As soon as I change my house, the rate people come along. If I change a stable into a garage, somehow or other within 20 minutes the planning officer knows that Davies of Leek is improving the stable and he comes around with a henchman to tell me my rates are going up.
Of course we already pay; every bit of improvement we make is paid for on the rates. Nobody has mentioned that Everybody seems to think that we are getting something for nothing. There was 973 a phrase once, that the Englishman's home was his castle. Now it is going to be haunted by sheets of paper and people snooping around, to see if I am sticking up a gazebo. It is completely ridiculous and it is the wrong way to make money. Have we reached the point in social service where there is no service without money? How arid that is. The nation is not as poor as all that. We have survived two great wars and we can survive this Government.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEI should like to add my support to my noble friend Lord Morris. I shall not speak for long because my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Middleton have said all that I would like to say. My only problem is that in supporting my noble friend Lord Morris I am also supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who made rather barbed remarks relating to me earlier. Therefore, I shall have a problem. But, in principle, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Morris.
§ 9.21 p.m.
§ Viscount RIDLEYI should like to add a word of support for the Government because it seems as though they need some at present. We must decide whether we feel that a service of this kind should be free—which means, in fact, that somebody else has to pay for it, because it must be paid for; all the arguments have been deployed—or whether we think that a service of this kind should be paid for partly, if not wholly, by the users of the service. One calls in evidence services like the telephone; one does not expect that to be free. Other examples are the railways and the Post Office. Indeed, to come a little further down the scale, let us say that I wish to have a firearms certificate. I have to pay the police for the time taken in checking whether I should have one. That situation seems fairly analogous and no one objects to that.
We must accept that this is an expensive service. It is protecting the public from what are sometimes terrible things, and we should support the Government's wish to charge. If only your Lordships had seen some of the frivolous planning applications which I had to deal with as chairman of a planning authority, in which people put in for planning for hundreds of houses for every field that they 974 owned in the hope of catching the planners unawares, and in the hope that they could possibly get away with it. They had to be treated seriously because they were serious applications and they took a lot of time. If only your Lordships had seen some of the planning applications which have been rejected by planning authorities, applications for gazebos or buildings which would have permanently disfigured the landscape, then you would be totally grateful to the planning service which we have in this country, and which I believe to be the finest in Europe, if not in the world. It needs the help of charging that will make it more efficient. I hope very much that the Government are successful in resisting the amendment.
§ Lord ROSS of MARNOCKThis clause applies to Scotland. I wonder why? The Secretary of State has bowed out of a lot of this because none of the aspects of finance as regards rate support grant and capital control apply to Scotland. However, this matter does apply. I should like to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland did about it. It is now a better clause than it was originally because we have got rid of subsection (3). However, I must say that subsection (3) is the one that probably cost the Government a little more money than anything else, because I can assure your Lordships that it takes a long, long time for the civil servants to get round to appeals, and then those concerned must await the decision of the local authorities. Those appeals and the hearing of them probably cost more money than would be taken up by a thousand of the small owner-occupiers who will be caught in this.
Anyone who is used to reading parliamentary statutes is very sceptical of any Minister who comes along and says, "Ah, but we are going to be very reasonable." The words in the statute are:
make … provision as he thinks fitfor the payment of a fee. In fact this money is going to be so easy to raise. It will not take long for a Government with a majority to get a Motion through the House in respect of this type of matter. From that point of view, this, to my mind, is quite a revolutionary change.It is taxation, but taxation upon whom? We have had some indication of the scale of the fees, and the Minister says that he 975 wants to make it simple. He talks about £40 on £1,000. I am thinking of myself as an owner-occupier who put an extension on his house three or four years ago. What can one get for £1,000? It will be a very simple change in that respect, but it will cost a person £40. The Minister said that it will not cost so very much for the commercial firms, the big developers. He is able to say that because there is so much going on as regards the small people. He instanced the £30 million and then went on to say how much of this would be taken up by the small people. Who are the small people? They are the owner-occupiers. For the kind of job that they are doing they will pay VAT. No doubt they will have to pay something now for the approval of building plans, and now this.
These are three things for which three years ago they did not have to pay anything. So you add the one to the other. It is the smaller businessman, the sort of person who is being pushed out of business, who does this kind of job. There will be an inhibiting factor in relation to this kind of cost. The point made from the Liberal Benches was I think so right—there are people who will try to get away with it. People have tried to get away with actually building a whole house without obtaining planning permission. I can remember a member of a local council in Kilmarnock—he was on the planning committee too—who received planning permission for a house in one area but who built it elsewhere in a different area and did not seem to think that he had done anything wrong. So there will be people who will go ahead with these things, and then we shall be faced with the business of enforcement. It will be very troublesome and I do not think that it will look very well when it is written up in the local papers and people discover just exactly what they have to pay for now when they did not have to pay for it before.
I hope that the Government will think again on this. To my mind the whole question is wrong. We must balance the interests of the individual against the well-being of the whole community. The great point that has been made is that of the success of our planning system. It has been pretty well agreed. Of course, there have been grouses as it 976 has gone on. Now we discover, about 40 years after having instituted it, that this is something that should be done. Why did we not do it before? Because we recognised that we were interfering with the rights of the individual, which were in existence long before we established the rights of the community through planning. If there is planning conrol, it is in the interests not of the person who uses it, but of the community as a whole, and so it is right that the community as a whole should pay for it. We should not be introducing this question of fees.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERA good many hours ago I made a speech in which I sought to suggest to your Lordships certain aspects of principle. I promise your Lordships that I shall not indulge in tedious repetition by repeating it. But if I may, I should like to comment on one or two points that have been made in the course of this extremely interesting debate.
First, I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Ridley that he seemed to brush aside the degree of innovation involved in these proceedings. After all, it is a fact that for at least 40 years—indeed, rather longer—planning has been regarded as a public service administered not in the interests of the individual applicant but in the interests of the community as a whole for the proper maintenance of the environment. To change that approach after over 40 years—and I am sure that my noble friend, sitting on the Conservative Benches, believes this—requires a good deal of justification. I also thought that he fell into certain difficulties in the use of analogy; we all do. He used the comparison of a gun licence. I would point out to him that one does not have to pay a fee if one applies for a gun licence and it is refused.
§ Viscount RIDLEYOh but you do.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERNot if it is refused.
§ Viscount RIDLEYIf you apply for a firearms certificate, you have to send your cheque with the application.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERAnd if it is refused, your cheque is returned.
§ Viscount RIDLEYI doubt it.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERIf my noble friend's authority does not return those cheques, I suggest that it very urgently consults its legal advisers. No analogy helps us, as I am sure he would agree. It is a change of a quite important nature. In his reply on the earlier amendment, my noble friend—and this is the only reason I return to it—did not answer the question (he answered so many that I fully sympathise with him) as to how much of the £30 million that he sought to raise would be offset by administrative expenses.
We have heard a good deal during this debate of the possibility of various concessions and amendments. Most of them are excellent, but no one will know better than my noble friend that acceptance of them would not only lose the revenue involved, would be not only knocked off the £30 million, but would equally entail an addition to the administrative staff required to administer it. If the Committee is to consider this on the basis of £30 million we want to know what the net figure is. Although it does not itself touch on the question of principle, I agree, it is very relevant to the practical side of it.
Like other speakers I have not been terribly satisfied by my noble friend's indication that if he gets this power it will be exercised moderately, and the amounts exacted from the citizen who applies, successfully or unsuccessfully, for planning permission will be moderate. Of course, they will be under this Government. My noble friend cannot guarantee what another Government will do. I remind him of a rather sinister precedent of nearly two centuries ago when William Pitt introduced the income tax towards the end of the 18th century. He indicated it would be both modest and temporary. I am sure that he was as honest and sincere when he said that as is my noble friend this evening.
What my noble friend has to face is that he is seeking to introduce a new form of taxation. This is an extremely delicate and difficult subject. I find myself in great difficulty over this. The line your Lordships know I have taken from time to time is that we ought to support Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to get the national economy right. Some of us indeed have urged on them not 978 perhaps greater taxation but greater reductions in expenditure. If my noble friend can really get there and say that the raising of this £30 million gross is essential to the recovery of the national economy and can demonstrate that, I should be impressed, but I do not think he can.
I have great sympathy with my noble friend's position. There he is on that Bench, and I appreciate that it is difficult for him to concede something like £30 million gross, be it that, of revenue, although I think he has seen that with the gallant exception of our noble friend Lord Ridley the general feeling expressed in this Committee has been very unhappy about this, and critical. Can he relieve all of us of this difficulty? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that there is no refuge to be found in the regulations. But there is another stage of this Bill. Can my noble friend tell the Committee that between now and the Report stage he will consult his right honourable friend and indicate to him the general unhappiness in all parties in this Committee about these proposals and the difficulties which have been brought out in this debate? Can he do that?
I know if he says it he will do it. Will he say that he will go back to him on the whole thing—not just on the individual modifications which he has been generous in giving undertaking about—without commitment, because I realise having been a Minister that he cannot at this moment give a commitment, we would not expect him to; but he could discuss the matter urgently with his right honourable friend. If his right honourable friend is sensible about it, as he may well be, then he could thereby well relieve many of us in this Committee of being torn on the dilemma of either appearing to accept and not vote against a really deplorable new precedent, or the alternative of appearing not fully to support a Government for which most of us have on this side great enthusiasm and which we realise is struggling gallantly with a desperate economic situation. I hope that my noble friend can help us.
§ Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURYI intervene briefly because I feel the Government are a little lacking in support on this issue. Having witnessed the number of plans submitted on a frivolous basis and 979 then revised by the planning authority, I can only suggest that there is a large waste of money and a vested interest in keeping planning staff employed in many instances, and possibly architects as well. I wanted to make that remark because I feel the principle of planning charges should be commended to the Committee.
§ 9.36 p.m.
§ Baroness DAVIDMay I ask the Minister a simple question and a particular one which is not really on the general principle? In the consultation paper with which we have been provided, under the heading "Exemptions" is says:
There would be no exemption for particular classes of applicant".If a family contains a disabled member and the family wishes to make an extension rather larger than the new allowance, would not an exemption be made even in that case?
§ Lord BELLWINTo deal with that last point first, if the noble Baroness, Lady David, were saying that if I could give her an assurance that there would be such an exemption she would then support the rejection of the amendment, I should be glad to answer her in detail. As it happens, I cannot give her a specific answer other than to say that in general terms I have tried to say all along when debating this issue (indeed, I have tried to say this when debating most subjects) that if any of your Lordships raised any aspect that should be looked at, we would gladly do so, but I suspect that this whole debate has gone much further than that now.
I wish at the outset to assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we appreciate the way in which he made his points. I recognise his great wish to be helpful and I want him to know how much I appreciate that, regardless of whatever he does about this issue. I shall not go over the ground again. I made a "clause stand part" speech at the beginning—perhaps I should have made it at the end; I do not know, but I do not think so—and I think I need only comment on a few points that have been made since.
First, we do not look on these planning charges at all as a tax. They are not a tax but fees payable whether permission 980 is granted or refused, and they are designed to offset part of the costs of the system. That is all they are, and I suggest that one needs to keep a sense of proportion in looking at the matter.
The charges are very small in comparison with the value of the developments and it may be of interest to the Committee to know that about £8,000 million-worth of development passes through the system in a year. The annual yeild of the planning charges is intended to be £30 million; that is, £30 million out of £8 billion. A scheme of 50 new houses would attract a charge of either £2,000 or about £2,800, depending on how it was done, out of a total value of £750,000.
It seems to me that the whole debate really turns on the principle of the thing. My noble friend Lord Morris asked me where the figure of £50 million came from. The figure was produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the figure of £30 million was arrived at as a reasonable proportion of what could be recovered without setting charges at a level which would be a disincentive to development, because there is no way the Government want to do anything which would have that effect.
If we really thought that what we were proposing would be a disincentive to development, then there would be no further discussion at all about it. Yes, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, it is possible that a future Government might exploit charges to "milk" the development industry, but I do not think that that is likely, because it would be self-defeating. That would not be a fear for me.
I do not think that there is much purpose in trying to answer some of the other individual points made. I think that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, were not correct. My noble friend asked me a very fair question: Is £30 million essential to the recovery of the country's economy? If it is not there, then it is £30 million that is not there. One would have to decide oneself what is essential. In an academic discussion that perhaps I might have with my noble friend on another occasion it would be interesting to learn what is the figure that makes it essential. I do not think that he and I are far apart on that.
981 I was disappointed in some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Morris, with whom I usually agree extensively on most things. I do not mind that he disagrees with us. I just wish that perhaps he had not put it quite the way that he did, but so be it.
At the end of the day my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter quite properly recognised the dilemma that I face in having to make decisions on this matter. In fact I do not have the freedom to manoeuvre; I do not have it at all. The Government believe—I must say it again—that this is not a tax; it is a fee. I thank my noble friend Lord Ridley for the points that he made and which I thought were fair. We genuinely believe that this charge would not at all be an imposition on individuals. One has to look at the figures to see how true that is. We are speaking of £30 or £40 for £25,000 worth of development. My goodness me! I just do not see how that could be a problem, and I would have to come back—
§ Lord HENLEYWill the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him here? It is £40 for the hope of £25,000 worth of development; it is not £40 for £25,000. There is a very big distinction in that.
§ Lord BELLWINI was not trying to say other than that. I am sorry if I was saying something that I did not intend to say, though I was not aware that I was. In any case, at the end of the day we should take all the other factors into account, not least the fact that by our willingness to free entirely from planning a big section of the GDO for individuals,
§ we have illustrated that we are committed to helping people to get on and to get things done without having to go for planning permissions. I invite at least enough of my noble friends, and I think one or two noble Lords opposite, to feel that the Government have justice on this issue. I say again that if it is felt that there have to be adjustments to regulations or whatever, then the door is wide open for that all the way down the line, and it will always stay wide open.
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONI shall be very brief. I did not speak during the main debate at all. The Minister has said that it is only £30 million, but what he has forgotten is that in the very recent past—and I should, I suppose, declare an interest because I am a lawyer and am apparently going to gain out of this—a developer has been confronted with, in addition to the matters that the Minister has mentioned, a payment for byelaw consent, a payment for Section 40 consents under the Highways Act, and additional payments for gas connections. Any developer is now faced with considerable additional cost, not just with this little planning charge that the Minister seems to dismiss. There is in this Bill and in the conduct of recent legislation a disincentive to development.
§ 9.44 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 55.
983| CONTENTS | ||
| Airey of Abingdon, B. | Denham, L. [Teller.] | Hatherton, L. |
| Avon, E. | Digby, L. | Holderness, L. |
| Balerno, L. | Drumalbyn, L. | Hornsby-Smith, B. |
| Bellwin, L. | Duncan-Sandys, L. | Ironside, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Ellenborough, L. | Kemsley, V. |
| Bessborough, E. | Elliot of Harwood, B. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Boardman, L. | Elton, L. | Long, V. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Exeter, M. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Ferrers, E. | Lyell, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Fortescue, E. | Mackay of Clashfern, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Freyberg, L. | Margadale, L. |
| Cockfield, L. | Gainford, L. | Marley, L. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Gowrie, E. | May, L. |
| Cork and Orrery, E. | Grimston of Westbury, L. | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Craigmyle, L. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Cranbrook, E. | Murton of Lindisfarne, L. | |
| Croft, L. | Hanworth, V. | Netherthorpe, L. |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Harvey of Tasburgh, L. | Newall, L. |
| De La Warr, E. | Harvington, L. | Northchurch, B. |
| Orkney, E. | Rochdale, V. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Rawlinson of Ewell, L. | St. Aldwyn, E. | Swansea, L. |
| Redesdale, L. | Sandford, L. | Tranmire, L. |
| Renton, L. | Sandys, L. [Teller.] | Trefgarne, L. |
| Ridley, V. | Strathclyde, L. | Vivian, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ardwick, L. | Hale, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] |
| Bacon, B. | Hampton, L. | |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. | Roberthall, L. |
| Birk, B. | Hatch of Lusby, L. | Ross of Marnock, L. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, L. | Henley, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Hooson, L. | Simon, V. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Houghton of Sowerby, L. | Spens, L. |
| Chitnis, L. | Jeger, B. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Kaldor, L. | Stedman, B. |
| Collison, L. | Killearn, L. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. |
| Craigavon, V. | Kilmarnock, L. | Stewart of Fulham, L. |
| David, B. | Listowel, E. | Stone, L. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. | Sudeley, L. |
| Denington, B. | Middleton, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. | Minto, E. | Tweeddale, M. |
| Evans of Claughton, L. | Mishcon, L. | Underhill, L. |
| Gainsborough, E. | Morris, L. [Teller.] | Wedderburn of Charlton, L. |
| Gladwyn, L. | Peart, L. | Wigoder, L. |
| Greenwood of Rossendale, L. | Winstanley, L. |
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 76, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
985§ 9.52 p.m.
§ Clause 77 [Local plans—expedited procedure]:
§
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 67, leave out from line 22 to line 38 on page 68.
§ The noble Lord said: I shall not detain your Lordships for very long on this amendment, with which perhaps it would be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. The reason I will not take long is not because I do not think it important, for I think it is; but I have a feeling that may be shared by some noble Lords that time is moving on and that we should like to get to bed before too late. The rubric of the clause reads: "Local plans—expedited procedure". That is what Clause 77 deals with. In doing that, it upsets the county structure and local plans—arrangements which, on the whole, have worked very well since the local government reorganisation.
§ So far as No. 202 is concerned, we are seeking to change the position that is now in the Bill and to return the legislation to the position before the Bill was put before your Lordships, in that the amendment will allow local plans of a district council to be approved in the absence of approval of the structure plans—which seems as though it is putting the cart before the horse.
§ Amendment No. 204 seeks to amend Schedule 11, since in that case the Secretary of State is allowed to amend a county's structure plan and to refuse or to waive an examination of the county's structure plan in public. Again, I should have thought that while expediting, admittedly, the plans procedures—that can hardly be disputed—it is a considerable invasion of the right of citizens to have a say in the way in which the county in which they live is arranging the future planning of that county for them, their children and their grandchildren. It seems to me that, while expediting the procedures, this is expediting them at considerable cost to the liberty of the individual and of the community to have its say.
§ My third amendment seeks to bring the law back to the position that it was in 986 before this Bill was published. This is even more serious because it seeks to give the Secretary of State an unusual power. In addition to having to consider objections raised at a public inquiry—which is obviously right—he is also entitled to take account of any other objections not raised at the public inquiry. One must ask oneself: Why were those objections not raised at the public inquiry? It gives one the feeling that possibly objections have been made on the side, in secret, by people who do not want their objections to be known and who have some reason for hiding their views. He can take into account any other considerations which appear to the authority to be material.
§ People go to a public inquiry—as they have done for years—thinking that only those matters which are discussed at the public inquiry can be considered. They will now find under the proposed new legislation that objections which are never aired at the public inquiry and any other considerations that the Secretary of State may care to dredge out from the recesses of his civil servants' pigeonholes are considered in deciding whether a plan or proposal or inquiry should reach a certain decision. I am not trying to exaggerate the case; I do not think I need to do so. It seems to me that this is a very novel addition, creating secret legislation in the cause and name of expediting the consideration of planning proposals.
§ All of us are in favour of expediting procedures for local planners but possibly at some time that expedition is won at too great a cost—namely, the cost of the private individual's or the community's right to have their views considered and to know that their views—and only their views—that are discussed in public are considered by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINIt is interesting that the noble Lord is seeking the removal of powers of direction which the Secretary of State received in Section 12 of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The new Section 15A which Clause 77 inserts into the 1971 Act follows Section 11 quite closely.
Since the structure plan must be approved by the Secretary of State before it becomes operative, he is bound to be 987 concerned about local plans which anticipate that approval, but there is a very strong case indeed for allowing local plans to proceed in advance of approval o f the structure plan in certain circumstances—provided that necessary safeguards are embodied in the legislation. These safeguards are present in the new Section 15A. The local planning authority can proceed with a local plan in advance of the approval of the structure plan only if the Secretary of State gives a direction authorising them to do so. This gives him an opportunity to ensure that national and regional implications are brought into consideration if a local plan is being adopted before approval of the structure plan. This opportunity is provided not only by the requirement that the Secretary of State must give his authorisation before the authority proceed with the local plan, but also by the consultation which has to be carried out before he makes the direction.
The noble Lord must make up his mind. What we are seeking to do is to give local authorities more flexibility to act and update their policies to meet any changed circumstances. There is always a safeguard that any proposals for modification have to be advertised. To refer to this as secret legislation really is stretching the bounds of credulity. I do not see it in any way as such. Indeed, this is another of the many attempts in this Bill to give flexibility and to get things moving. So long as there is a safeguard—and I have just explained that there is a safeguard—what are we afraid of?
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONThe noble Lord the Minister has dealt only with the first amendment. Since the Minister seems keen to expedite the proceedings of this Committee, I moved the three amendments together and the first is the one which gives me least concern. It is the second and the third, Nos. 204 and 205, which I am more concerned about.
Some of your Lordships may already be aware that there is great concern being expressed by district councillors, and others who are interested in the district plans and structure plans for various districts, that their views will not be given 988 proper credence by the Minister. That is what concerns them more, and that considerations to which they have not had an opportunity of directing their minds will be considered by the Minister. That seems to me, as a lawyer, to be an unusual way of conducting administrative law.
Clearly, the Minister is very hardheaded. He is getting his own back on me for all the attacks he has had from his own side on the later clauses. But in order that we can proceed as far as possible this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I will discuss the matter with those people who brought it to my attention and, if necessary, will raise it again at a later date.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 10.2 p.m.
§
Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 69, line 27, at end insert ("and in what general respects it does not so conform").
§ The noble Viscount said: With this amendment I should like to take Amendments Nos. 202B, 202C and 206A. They are relatively trivial, I believe they are unexceptional and will only help to make the planning process a little smoother. The object of these amendments is to clarify the procedures to ensure that where a local plan does not conform with the structure plan, everybody will know why and where and what is to happen next. Amendment No. 206A merely states that if there is disagreement between a local and a structure plan, the local plan cannot automatically prevail. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINI recognise that the local authority associations have misgivings about the position when a local plan is no longer in general conformity with a newly approved or altered structure plan. It is asserted that a provision on the lines proposed by my noble friend would remove uncertainty, but I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee the outcome of the discussions that have taken place with the local authority associations.
They have accepted that this way of removing uncertainty might be accompanied by unnecessary precision. In our 989 view, it will usually be apparent from the documents why the local plan is regarded by the county council to be no longer in general conformity with the structure plan. Moreover, there would be a risk of bringing the implications for local plans forward at the same time as decisions were sought on structural issues. This would be certain to cause delay.
The local authority associations have accepted that a better way to meet their misgivings would be to extend the provision in paragraph 5(c) of Schedule 11. I am pleased to say that another amendment, No. 206A, which is designed to do this, is on the Marshalled List, and I shall commend that to your Lordships as the best course. I cannot recommend acceptance of No. 202C, although the intention behind my noble friend's amendment is perfectly reasonable. It is quite right that those using a local plan should be aware of the county's decision. But Amendment No. 202C goes only part of the way; it will not help those who already have a copy of the local plan.
The present regulations setting out the procedure relating to structure and local plans do not meet this point, but new ones will be drafted shortly to amend the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974, and we shall consider how to meet the point which my noble friend has raised. In the circumstances, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Viscount RIDLEYYes, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that it will be acceptable in principle.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C not moved.]
§ Clause 77 agreed to.
§ Clause 78 [Additional amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 78 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord RENTONThere is another strange misprint here. The reference to Schedule 10 should be a reference to 990 Schedule 11, and, to save my making another speech on the next clause, I should say that the same mistake is made in Clause 79, where it should be Schedule 12 instead of Schedule 11.
§ Lord BELLWINAgain, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend, who really is so expert on these matters. He must be the absolute terror of the printers; and thank goodness that he is. I am grateful to him for pointing this out to us.
§ Clause 78 agreed to.
§ Schedule 11 [Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
§ 10.7 p.m.
§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 203ZA:
§
Page 150, line 20, at end insert—
("In section 7 of that Act (preparation of structure plans)—
(6) The written statement shall be illustrated by such diagram or diagrams as may be prescribed, which shall be treated as forming part of the plan"; and
(c) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (6):—
(6A) The structure plan shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum summarising the reasons which in the opinion of the local planning authority justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan, stating the relationship thereof to expected development and other use of land in neighbouring areas where relevant and containing such other matters as may be prescribed; and the explanatory memorandum may contain such illustrative material as the local planning authority think appropriate".
§
In section 8 of that Act (publicity in connection with preparation of structure plans)—
(a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of subsection (1):—
§ The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 203ZA and to speak to the consequential amendment, No. 203B. This amendment seeks to separate out the policies on the structure on local plans from the supporting material. At present anomalies can arise because policies can be deleted, but not supporting material. A change in the regulations has already been made by Government and this amendment merely tidies up the primary legislation. I believe the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINWithout making any speech on it, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this forward. Yes, we do accept it.
§
Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 151, line 2, leave out ("a report of").
§ The noble Viscount said: I shall be as brief as possible. I believe that, again, this amendment is not contested. It is just to simplify the process of altering the structure plan. I believe it meets the Government's wishes, and it helps everybody. Accordingly, I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINMy noble friend will be glad to know that I accept in principle what is proposed here because it is a small but none the less useful contribution to our efforts to reduce time and money spent on the preparation of structure plans. We accept the purpose of this amendment, but it does appear to be inadequate. The changes that are needed have been identified and I would be glad to discuss with my noble friend what is required. I would expect this to enable him to bring forward the necessary amendment at Report stage. With that, perhaps he might feel able to withdraw this amendment and we will proceed in the way I have suggested.
§ Viscount RIDLEYI am delighted to withdraw it, but I would much rather my noble friend put down what he does want on this point. It would save me a lot of trouble, and him, too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 151, line 6, after ("section") insert ("subsections (3) to (6A) of section 7 and").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the earlier amendment, which was agreed. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINIn the few words we had on Amendment No. 203ZA I welcomed the proposal to distinguish the policies in general proposals in a submitted structure plan from the explanatory material. It is logical to extend this concept to proposals for the alteration or the repeal or replacement of an approved structure plan. I welcome this amendment in principle. But I understand that, as drafted, it will not properly achieve the necessary alterations, and I would say, as I said to my noble friend, that I would be happy to discuss with the noble Lord, between now and the Report stage, the amendment that is needed. With revised wording, I am sure we can bring it back.
§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDEIn view of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
§ 10.10 p.m.
§ Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 204A:
§
Page 151, line 17, at end insert—
(". The following section shall be substituted for section 15 of that Act (alteration of local plans):—
§ "15.—(1) A local planning authority may at any time make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan adopted by them and may at any time, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan approved by him.
§ (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, a local planning authority shall, if the Secretary of State gives them a direction in that behalf with respect to a local plan adopted by them or approved by him, as soon as practicable prepare proposals of a kind specified in the direction, being proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of the plan.
§ (3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section the provisions of sections 11(9) to (11), 12, 13 and 14 of this Act shall apply in relation 993 to the making of proposals for the alteration, repeal or replacement of a local plan under this section, and to alterations to a local plan so proposed, as they apply in relation to the preparation of a local plan under section 11 of this Act and to a local plan prepared thereunder, but as if the reference in section 14(4)(a) to section 9 of this Act were a reference to section 10 of this Act.
§ (4) Section 13 of this Act shall not apply in any case where it appears to the local planning authority, on consideration of proposals for the alteration or repeal and replacement of a local plan, that no matters which require a local inquiry arise—
- (a) from the proposals; or
- (b) from any local plan submitted with them under section 12(2) of this Act."").
§ The noble Lord said: It may be that the matter which this amendment deals with is also dealt with, but in a different way, by Amendment No. 206AA. My amendment covers this point. Schedule 11, paragraph 3, confers powers on the Secretary of State to dispense with an examination in public in relation to proposed alterations for repeals or replacements of existing structure plans in appropriate circumstances. In my view it is desirable that similar powers to dispense with the requirement for a public inquiry to be held in connection with proposals to alter, repeal or replace existing local plans should also be introduced for the same reasons as the power is required in the case of structure plans. This amendment so provides. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINI recognise that there will be occasions when proposals to alter, repeal or replace a local plan adopted by the local planning authority or approved by the Secretary of State will be uncontroversial and that it could well be a waste of public money to conduct an inquiry. I also recognise that there are a number of objectors to local plans who are quite prepared to rely on their written objections and do not want to take part in an inquiry. In other words, I fully accept the principle behind my noble friend's amendment.
There is, however, an important consideration I must bring to the notice of the Committee. We must safeguard the right of an objector to be heard at a public local inquiry if he is not content for his objection to a proposed local plan to be considered on the basis of his written representations. The Council on Tribunals have been consulted and would wish 994 the discretion to local authorities to dispense with a public local inquiry to be limited to cases where no objector wishes to appear at an inquiry.
My right honourable friends and I would be happy therefore to accept an amendment to the effect that an inquiry need not be held if all objectors said in writing that they did not wish to appear before an inspector. I wonder whether my noble friend would be able to consider this alternative. In saying that, perhaps I should mention that when we come to Amendment No. 206AA we will accept it, but we feel that this one goes a bit too far.
§ Lord SANDFORDI am grateful to my noble friend and will be very glad to withdraw the amendment. However, I should feel much happier if my noble friend would go a little further and say that, having accepted the case I am making, he and his department, with all the expertise they can command, will propose Government amendments at Report stage if, in my noble friend's view, Amendment No. 206AA does not do everything which the two amendments together are seeking to do.
§ Lord BELLWINWe will look at what my noble friend has said. We will accept Amendment No. 206AA, but if it should be that there is something additional along the lines of what my noble friend has said then we will consider it. As for this amendment, perhaps he would withdraw it.
§ Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURNThe Minister said that the objection should be in writing. If somebody does not object in writing, what is the position then?
§ Lord BELLWINThat does not matter. It is when they do object in writing that this has to be taken into account.
§ Lord SANDFORDI beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 204A.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 206:
995
§
Page 151, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (3) after the word "him" there shall he inserted the words "and shall so direct where an objection has been made, and has not been withdrawn, by the Minister of Agriculture.";").
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when the Minister of Agriculture has objected to a local plan and has not withdrawn his objection, that plan, before being adopted, shall be called in by the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State shall have a chance to understand the problem and, maybe, give a direction on that plan. Perhaps I may be forgiven for taking the Committee very quickly through the process of local plans by quoting one particular example. It is in Staffordshire, but it could occur anywhere else. Here a local plan was made. The National Farmers' Union and the Ministry of Agriculture objected to it. An inspector was called and, at great expense, people put their case to the inspector. The inspector ruled in favour of the National Farmers' Union in this case, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
§ I am sorry to tell your Lordships, however, that the council overruled the inspector's decision and, as a result of this, the council went ahead with the original scheme. It published a plan in the press. As a result, the National Farmers' Union and the agricultural lobby lobbied the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Agriculture. The result of this was a very long delay of some six to eight months. After all this, there was a somewhat garbled letter. The Secretary of State did not call the plan in but neither did he call the plan out—if there could be such a corollory—but made an unofficial recommendation that the council should develop another site before they developed the particular site to which the agricultural lobby, if I may include the Ministry of Agriculture, were objecting.
§ Under my amendment, which I hope my noble friend will see in a favourable light, the Minister of Agriculture would be called in at stage four, which is when the council decides to go ahead with the original scheme against the advice of the inspector and against the advice or the desires of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture could then oblige the Secretary of State to look at the scheme. I am not for one moment asking 996 that the Secretary of State should rule in favour of the agricultural lobby. I am far too modest to ask that. I am just asking him to look at it. He did not do this in this case and it caused enormous delay.
§ The two important points that would be achieved by this amendment are, first of all, the drawing of the Secretary of State's attention to the loss of agricultural land—on which I have bored your Lordships before tonight. Secondly, something which might appeal more strongly to my noble friend is the speeding up of the planning process. I can really see no alternative to my noble friend's accepting my amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord CLEDWYN of PENHROSMay I briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has made the case for this amendment very well.
During a previous intervention I indicated my general support for this. I should have thought that this was an amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary would be glad to support with enthusiasm, because it would mean that he recognised there was a rapport between his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. The impression given by this Bill is that there is inadequate consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and with the general interests of agriculture. This may well not be the case in practice but, so far, there has been no indication that the Government understand the concern of farmers generally about the way this Bill is moving.
I should have thought that there was a very strong case for conceding this amendment. After all, if the Minister of Agriculture is still concerned that a particular case does not meet the objection which the agricultural community has made to it, and there is an outstanding objection by him and his department, then it is only reasonable that the Secretary of State should call it in and have a discussion with his right honourable friend. It is really a question of co-operation between departments and, if the Parliamentary Secretary can give the Committee an assurance that he is absolutely satisfied that there would be such consultation, then I should be quite happy to let this go by. But I am not yet quite satisfied that there is this general agreement and 997 that there has been the proper kind of consultation between his department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this. Therefore I should be glad to have the reaction of the Parliamentary Secretary.
§ Lord MIDDLETONFurther to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, the 1978 report by the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture—the Stain Report for short—made the recommendation that the present call-in procedure be strengthened to require the DoE at MAFF request to call in any case where there is an unresolved agricultural objection to a planning proposal. This was welcomed on all sides of the House when we debated it about 18 months ago. If I remember rightly, the recommendation was accepted by the last Government but so far this Government have not reacted to it. This amendment touched on the same point, but is more limited in scope. It is confined to MAFF objections in the case of the adoption of a local plan and, so far as it goes, I support it.
On the wider issue I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that it is time this Government reacted in some way to that particular planning recommendation in the Strutt Report. There is nothing political about it and its acceptance would go a long way towards safeguarding our food producing capacity. I do not see that it needs to be embodied in legislation and I am not asking my noble friend Lord Bellwin to make any statement at this stage. So far as my noble friend's amendment goes in that direction I am with him.
§ Lord MONK BRETTONI wish to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, because I believe his amendment to be most important. I think that the further planning gets into the hands of smaller and more numerous authorities the less easy it appears likely that the Government will find it to be to control land take. Land take is a national matter and I think the amendment has a bearing on that aspect of it. While the amendment will not altogether satisfy what was recommended in the Strutt Report, at least it goes a considerable way towards doing 998 so and helping central Government in their aim of controlling land take.
I should now like to turn for a moment to what I believe are the considerable virtues of this amendment, particularly the words mentioned therein
and shall so direct where an objection has been made, and has not been withdrawn".Of course the Ministry can withdraw that objection very quickly the moment they see that the local authority concerned is taking good and sensible steps to avoid excessive land take but, if that local authority is not so doing, they cannot withdraw. By limiting it in this way I think it will be found that it encourages negotiations to continue. Section 206 may in the end not come into effect but the fact that it is there will ensure that matters are resolved quicker—I emphasise the word "quicker"—and at the same time taking the agricultural aspect into account.
§ Lord SANDFORDThis amendment is exercising into the realm of the machinery of government and I should have thought my noble friend would have no difficulty at all in confirming immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that, if there is a case of agricultural land being taken for development against which there are massive or heavy objections, he and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, without any question, have consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture. The same would apply if there were a proposal from the Department of Energy to build a power station; if there were objections to that there would be consultation between the two departments; or if there were a proposal for building a motorway there would be consultations between the Ministry of Transport and the Department of the Environment, or in the case of docks between the Department of Trade and the Department of the Environment. All these consultations go on, in my experience invariably, when there are objections to these sort of proposals.
§ Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOSI am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. But he would of course understand that in the case of a motorway there would be a public inquiry.
§ Lord SANDFORDThere would probably be a public inquiry if there were heavy objections.
§ Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOSWithout question.
§ Lord SANDFORDThe point I am making is that my belief is that the machinery of government requires a decision to call in a matter for a public inquiry to be taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the responsibility is his. This amendment will take away that responsibility and place it with the Minister of Agriculture, and I do not think that would be a correct division of responsibility. I think this matter of when and under what circumstances to call something in for public local inquiry is a decision for the Secretary of State to take—certainly after consultations, but it should be his own decision.
§ Lord BELLWINI am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said. It is the thrust of what I want to say. I would like to pay tribute to what I thought was the very clear way in which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley put his case. My noble friend's concern about the loss of high quality agricultural land is shared by myself and my right honourable friends in another place. Government policy for the protection of agricultural land is to ensure as far as possible that land of higher agricultural quality is not taken for development where land of a lower quality is available, and that the amount of land taken is no greater than is reasonably required for carrying out the development in accordance with the proper standards. There can be no misunderstanding about the recognition of the value of high quality agricultural land. But the needs of agriculture cannot be given absolute priority without regard to other requirements of communities, and hence the need for the planning system to resolve problems about the location of new development.
Let me say on the particular matter of calling in local plans for the Secretary of State's approval that every structure plan must be approved by the Secretary of State, but it is the intention that local plans will normally be adopted by the local planning authorities themselves. 1000 The object of approving structure plans is to give local planning authorities a clear indication of the planning issues in the county context, so that the authorities can proceed with the detailed work and the resolution of the remaining planning issues without the necessity to refer these detailed matters to the Secretary of State for his approval, as was the case under the old development plan system. The power to call in a local plan is regarded as a reserve power to be used only in a limited range of circumstances where intervention is clearly justified.
The circumstances in which the exercise of call-in powers of local plans might be appropriate are where the plan raises issues which are matters of national or regional interest or where the plan gives rise to substantial controversy which extends beyond the area of the plan-making authority. We would not regard it as appropriate for the Secretary of State to consider calling in a local plan where these wider considerations did not arise.
In deciding whether or not to call in a local plan the Secretary of State has the opportunity to consider any matter relevant to the local plan proposals. If there is an objection by the Ministry of Agriculture or any other department or body it can be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, who is able to decide whether he should call in the local plan for his own decision. Having introduced a development plan system which is designed to leave the detailed decisions to local planning authorities, it would be to move in the opposite direction to introduce an obligation to call in a local plan. In fact, no local plan has yet been called in for decision by the Secretary of State but many local plans have been adopted.
I should like to say in conclusion that the amendment is not necessary to further the Government's policy of ensuring that the use of high quality agricultural land for development is regulated carefully. It is the Government's policy to keep to a minimum the intervention of central Government in local government affairs. As I have already said, it would seem to me to be wrong to single out a particular kind of objection for treatment in this way. It must be better, surely, to rely on the general power of the Secretary of State to intervene in appropriate circumstances.
1001 May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I thought that the point he raised was absolutely right; namely, the extent to which there would be collusion between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. Would they really work together and consult together in matters of this kind? In my view that is absolutely essential in matters of this kind. I am not only glad that he put the question to me in the way that he did. I can tell him that it was a point that I had intended to make myself in any case because I thought that it was the important part of the matter. Given the intention generally and where we are trying to get with this whole local structure plan situation, I think that the point he made was the right one and I thank him for making it.
I wonder whether, in view of the sentiments that I have expressed, my noble friend Lord Stanley may feel that at least, while obviously not being as happy as if we had been able to accept the amendment, he is able to accept the tone of what I am saying and perhaps not to press the amendment.
Earl DE LA WARRI have been very dismayed as a farmer to hear my noble friend's answer. I think that he has dealt with a great deal which, if I may say so, is not relevant to my noble friend Lord Stanley's amendment. It seems to me that there is such admirable mechanistic sense in the amendment that my noble friend should deal with it much more sympathetically. All that he is being asked, as I understand it, is that the matter shall come to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture at the earliest possible moment, and certainly at a moment very much earlier than in the example which my noble friend Lord Stanley quoted. I do not believe that my noble friend has taken this point, and I ask him to reconsider it and try to do something a little better than uttering, if I may say so, pious hopes that the two Ministries will work together.
§ Lord BELLWINI am sorry that my noble friend feels it necessary to refer to what I said in that way. Pious hopes—well, I suppose that most of life is hoping, and piously is perhaps a better way of doing it than any other. But what I 1002 said—as indeed I hope as regards everything I say—I meant. When we talk about the need for both Secretaries of State to consult together in these cases, I am sure that that is the right way to deal with it. If my noble friend is questioning whether we are satisfied that the procedure, the systems, would throw it up in such a way that it could not be overlooked, or it could not slip through, then I think that would be a fair question to ask and I would want to look at it and be satisfied about it.
In view of the doubt expressed, I shall look at exactly what my noble friend Lord Stanley said, to make sure that we have tried to cover his points. But I hope in turn that he will perhaps look at what I have said as well, because I still believe that the principle of what we are trying to do is important. As long as we look at the individual problem situations that are brought to our notice and are forewarned of them—and I am well aware that there are a couple of cases which have given special cause for concern—then I think that that is probably at this moment as far as I could go. I hope that that may satisfy my noble friend.
§ Lord MONK BRETTONI am rather worried, and I should like to mention to my noble friend Lord Bellwin that once land has gone for development it has gone for good. I should like to ask him one question. Do we have enough flexibility in this matter? For instance, should the grade of the land, and simply the grade of the land, be the only criterion to which we should work here? What about the aspects of a mixture of land and the effects on units concerned, and so forth? I remain very concerned about it.
§ Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEYIf everybody has spoken, I must tell my noble friend that I am not happy with his reply. First, I shall reassure him that I do not intend to divide at this moment, but I am not saying that I shall not return on Report and divide at that stage. I am sorry to say this, but I think that his reply was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Obviously, I did not put my case clearly, and he has not yet got the message.
I am sorry to delay the Committee, but this is an important point. There is concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, that the farmers' problem 1003 over the loss of land has not been recognised in this Bill. I have said that before and I shall not go on about it. There is a large amount of land take, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, and from looking at the Bill it seems that it is not recognised in the department. Secondly, there is no compulsion for the Department of the Environment to abide by the Minister of Agriculture's petition. In this amendment I am asking only for him to be allowed to petition or ask for a Secretary of State to be called in. My noble friend Lord Bellwin said that of course this would happen. But it is not, in fact, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture who become involved in such small rows as I have mentioned in Staffordshire. It is regional officers, and it is between them. So it never comes before the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture.
I am simply asking that the case should be listened to. I shall not sit down because it is an important point that I wish to make I do not think that my noble friend I, as realised it yet. He said that there is limited use; my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has already spoken about the phrase "has not been withdrawn". There is ample occasion in the consultative arrangement for the local authority to withdraw their objection when a Minister of Agriculture has objected. I think that this is very important. I shall not go on because I am obviously being pressed to sit down; but I shall bring this back on Report and I shall divide then unless I get some satisfaction on it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 152, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that where the local plan is specified in such a list as is mentioned in subsection (2)(ii) or (3)(ii) of section 15B of this Act, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply until such time as a proposal for the alteration of the local plan or for its repeal, and replacement with a new plan has been adopted or has been approved by the Secretary of State.").
§ The noble Viscount said: We have debated this point and I formally beg to move the amendment.
1004§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 206AA:
§
Page 152, line 8, at end insert—
("In section 15 of that Act (alterations of local plans) —
(4) The requirement in section 13 of this Act for a local inquiry or other hearing to be held shall not apply if all persons who have made an objection have indicated in writing that they do not wish to appear.").
§ The noble Lord said: The noble Lord has already indicated that he intends to accept this amendment. Therefore, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I move it formally.
§ 10.39 p.m.
§ Lord SPENS moved Amendment No. 206AB:
§
Page 153, line 27, at end insert—
(" . In section 22(2)(d) of that Act at the end there shall be inserted the words "or for any business purpose".").
§ The noble Lord said: My purpose is to help small businesses to get started with the minimum of frustrations, particularly in rural areas. On Second Reading I made two points which I said I hoped would be introduced into this Bill. The first was that no permission should be required for starting up a business inside one's own house, and the second, that in the case of small business applications to start up elsewhere the planning authority should have to give a good reason for refusing the application.
§
Our Select Committee on Long Term Unemployment has been taking a lot of evidence about small businesses. One of the problems coming through to us extensively is the difficulty they are finding in getting suitable premises. I was encouraged when I received after that Second Reading debate a letter from the new chairman of the Development Commission, who had apparently been listening on his car radio to a BBC report of a bit of my speech—a report which I did not know about. He waited until he
1005
had seen Hansard and then he wrote as follows:
… through our agency, C.SIRA, we do all that we can to support small businesses in rural areas with loans, specialist advice, training and in other ways. The planning problems of small businesses which you mentioned are well recognised.
That is a bit of support from an important source for what I ask to be done.
§
Amendments Nos. 206AB and AC are designed to do that. They would amend the Town and Country Planning Act which Schedule 11 will do through being brought into effect by Clause 79. My two amendments are not interdependent and so I shall speak to the first one now. Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning Act sets out various exceptions to the requirement that planning permissions have to be obtained for the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. Subsection (2)(d) states that one of those exceptions is,
the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such;".
My amendment would add to that "or for any business purpose". That, if I might suggest to the noble Lord, the Minister, would, in the words that he used a short time ago, cover nearly half of all planning applications if such an amendment were to be accepted. Therefore, the acceptance of it would reduce the costs of the whole operation enormously.
§
After that Second Reading debate, I received in my mail another letter dated 29th August which I should like to quote.
I am engaged in battle with the local planners to obtain permission for my secretary (and perhaps one or two other personal support stall) to occupy, with filing and storage accommodation, 710 square feet next door to my study in a building in the grounds of my home. The grounds cover some six acres and the building is located in the centre of this area in a position where it is visible only from my own house.
The planners are resisting my application on the grounds that the building is in the Green Belt and there is therefore a presumption against any development other than agricultural or recreational. They are unwilling to grant permission even for one secretary.
When we are trying to encourage the creation of new small businesses, that is a nonsense. I hope that you will give some sympathy to my amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDYSThere will be general 1006 sympathy with the underlying intention of this amendment. As a Government we believe we are widely supported in our determination to promote the small business sector. We intend to make development control less of a burden by changing attitudes on the part of those who operate the system so that where small businesses want to start up in residential or rural areas, planning permission is withheld or onerous conditions are applied only where there are cogent and specific reasons for doing so. This policy is to be set out in a circular on development control and will be applied in appeal decisions.
Such a discriminating application of control is, we believe, a far more practical and reasonable approach than that of abandoning controls altogether, for there is equally no doubt that some, even small scale, developments—the noble Lord referred to one in particular—in residential or rural areas can be very damaging to amenity. I am not suggesting that the case which the noble Lord cited is one of those, but activities which generate noise, smell, vibration, heavy traffic and unsightly clutter cannot go uncontrolled whatever the scale of the activity. I should point out that the curtilages of some dwelling-houses, especially in the country, can be very large indeed. The business activities that would be exempted from planning control by this amendment could thus be large-scale. Also, the amendment does not restrict the use of the curtilage of the house to a use connected with the occupation of the house. The business activities could therefore be carried on by someone other than the person living in the house. For these reasons I hope noble Lords will join me in resisting the amendment.
Lord SPENSI am grateful for the Minister's assurance that there will be a relaxation under the directions that will be sent out to planning authorities, and with that in mind I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 10.48 p.m.
§ Lord SPENS moved Amendment No. 206AC:
§
Page 153, line 27, at end insert —
(" . In section 29(1)(b) of that Act at the end there shall be inserted the words ("; but
1007
such refusal shall not be given in the case of an application to establish a business employing less than ten employees unless it can be shown that the establishment of such a business would be seriously detrimental to the local environment.")
§ The noble Lord said: This covers the second point I wanted to raise; namely, that where a planning permission is made in the case of a small business it should not be refused for no very apparent good reason. Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which deals with the determination of applications, says in subsection (1)(a) that a planning authority may grant planning permission either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit or, under subparagraph (b), may refuse planning permission. My amendment would add to (b), in effect, that such planning permission would not be refused unless there was a very good reason for so doing. I think that what the Minister said in reply to the last amendment is probably sufficient to cover this one, but I should like his confirmation of that. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDYSThe Government have as their policy to encourage and promote the establishment of small businesses, and wherever possible we are removing bureaucratic restraints. There was some demonstration of this on the first day of the Committee stage in a speech by my noble friend Lord Sandford when he pointed out that the associations between them had produced a list last year of a total of 1,000 controls which in their view should be dismantled, governing the relationship between central and local government. As your Lordships are aware, in September of last year the Government produced a White Paper whittling down that number to about 300—with which they were in agreement with the associations.
In development control we shall be setting out this policy in a circular which will ask local authorities not to withhold, or set onerous conditions to, planning permission for developments by small businesses unless there are strong specific reasons for doing so. That is a policy which local authorities will have to take into account along with all other considerations which are material to the planning application, including the provisions of the development plan for the area, the availability of infrastructure, the effect on 1008 public amenity, the health and safety and traffic implications, and the environmental considerations.
This amendment would go further in that it would actually prevent the refusal of a planning application in respect of the establishment of a business employing fewer than 10 people, except where it could be shown to be
seriously detrimental to the local environment".I do not know what that vague phrase would mean, but it is clear that the effect of it would be to preclude the local authority from refusing a planning permission for such a development, even if it were dangerous, or overloaded infrastructure, or was unsightly, or occupied land that was earmarked for some other purpose in the plan, or was in a Green Belt. In fact, the case to which the noble Lord referred was in a Green Belt. There are many important considerations that would have to be set aside in this way. I do not think it right to overset this balance of many, often conflicting, considerations in the way that this amendment would do. I think it is right that the employment and economic considerations should weigh heavily in the balance, but not that other considerations should be ignored.I should also point out that the amendment is technically defective, in that it relates not to "development", for which planning permission is required, but to "the establishment of a business", for which as such no permission is required. I hope that noble Lords will join with me in resisting this amendment.
Lord SPENSAgain I thank the Minister for his explanation, and I must hope that the circular, when it comes out, will cover the points that I want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 206B:
§
Page 153, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 7:—
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of extending the following provisions to Greater London. The first is Section 14(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which requires a district planning authority that has prepared a local plan to apply to the county planning authority for a certificate that that local plan conforms generally to the structure plan for the area concerned. The second is new Clause 15B(3) in Clause 77 on page 69 of the present Bill. It requires that when a county planning authority has approved proposals for alteration of a structure plan, it shall consider whether the local plans operative in the area to which the structure plan relates are in general conformity with the provisions of the structure plan as altered, and it shall prepare lists showing plans 1010 which do conform and those which do not.
§ I understand that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend such provisions to the Greater London Council during the passage of this Bill in another place, but due to the shortage of time available the necessary amendments could not be moved. If I am incorrect, I hope that my noble friend will point it out. This amendment seeks to ensure that these provisions apply. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINMy noble friend will be glad to learn that the Government support this amendment in principle. In fact, we are not able to accept it in its present form because it appears to be defective in one or two respects. For example, it does not refer to the new Section 15A of the 1971 Act, inserted by this Bill, which provides for alterations to local plans to be proceeded with, in certain circumstances, in advance of related alterations to the structure plan. There are one or two other alterations, too, which will be needed. To ensure that the timing of the steps required are compatible, we should like this amendment to include a provision that it would be brought into effect by order by the Secretary of State. However, the defects are minimal, and I would hope that my noble friend might come forward with the appropriate amendments at Report stage. I should be happy to discuss with him what appears to be required.
§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDEI would hope that perhaps the noble Lord himself might come forward with the amendment at Report stage, as in the case of an earlier amendment that I was talking about, where there were defects. I think that would be useful.
§ Lord BELLWINI was merely trying to put it very nicely the other way round, but what I am really saying is this. Let us by all means get together and jointly produce a form of words which will cover the point.
§ Lord GAINFORDI am very grateful for my noble friend's remarks. This matter will be considered and brought up again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1011§ Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 79 agreed to.
§ 10.57 p.m.
§
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 206C:
After Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
§ " . Schedule [Amendments relating to enforcement of control] below shall have effect:
§ "SCHEDULE
§ AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL
§ Enforcement Notices
§ 1. The following sections shall be substituted for sections 87 and 88 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971:—
§ "Power to issue enforcement notice.
§ 87.—(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that there has been a breach of planning control after the end of 1963, then, subject to the following provisions of this section, the authority, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, may issue a notice requiring the breach to be remedied and serve copies of the notice in accordance with subsection (3) of this section.
§ (2) A notice under this section is referred to in this Act as an "enforcement notice".
§ (3) There is a breach of planning control—
- (a) if development has been carried out, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, without the grant of the planning permission required in that behalf in accordance with Part III of the Act of 1962 or Part III of this Act; or
- (b) if any conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted have not been complied with.
§ (4) An enforcement notice which relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—
- (a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land; or
- (b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land; or
- (c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse; or
- (d) the failure to comply with a condition which prohibits or has the effect of preventing a change of use of a building to use as a single dwellinghouse,
§ (5) A copy of an enforcement notice shall be served, not later than 28 days after the date of its issue, 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.
§ (6) An enforcement notice shall specify the matters alleged to constitute a breach of planning control.
§ (7) An enforcement notice shall also specify—
- (a) any steps which are required by the authority to be taken in order to remedy the breach;
- (b) any such steps as are specified in subsection (10) of this section and which are required by the authority to be taken.
§ (8) An enforcement notice shall specify the period within which any such step as is mentioned in subsection (7) of this section is to be taken and may specify different periods for the taking of different steps.
§ (9) In this section "steps to be taken in order to remedy the breach" means (according to the particular circumstances of the breach) steps for the purpose—
- (a) of restoring the land to its condition before the development took place; or
- (b) of securing compliance with the conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted.
- (i) the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works;
- (ii) the discontinuance of any use of land; and
- (iii) the carrying out on land of any building or other operations.
§ (10) The steps mentioned in subsection (7)(b) of this section are steps which consist of the carrying out of work —
- (a) which is specified in the enforcement notice; and
- (b) which is for the purpose—
- (i) of making the development comply with the terms of any planning permission which has been granted in respect of the land, or
- (ii) of removing or alleviating any injury to amenity which has been caused by the development.
§ (11) Where the matters which an enforcement notice alleges to constitute a breach of planning control include 1013 development which has involved the making of a deposit of refuse or waste materials on land, the notice may require that the contour of the deposit shall be modified by altering the gradient or gradients of its sides in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
§ (12) The Secretary of State may by regulation direct—
- (a) that enforcement notices shall specify matters additional to those which they are required to specify by this section; and
- (b) that every copy of an enforcement notice served under this section shall be accompanied by an explanatory note giving such information as may be specified in the regulations with regard to the right of appeal conferred by section 88 of this Act.
§ (13) Subject to section 88 of this Act, an enforcement notice shall take effect on a date specified in it.
§ (14) The local planning authority may withdraw an enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another) at any time before it takes effect.
§ (15) If they do so, they shall forthwith give notice of the withdrawal to every person who was served with a copy of the notice.
§ (16) Where—
- (a) an enforcement notice has been issued in respect of development consisting of the erection of a building or the carrying out of works without the grant of planning permission; and
- (b) the notice has required the carrying out of any such work as is specified in subsection (10) (b)(ii) of this section; and
- (c) the works required by the notice have been completed, for the purposes of this Act planning permission for the retention of the building or works as they are as a result of compliance with the enforcement notice shall be deemed to have been granted n an application for such permission made by the local planning authority.
§ Appeal against enforcement notice.
§ 88.—(1) A person having an interest in the land to which an enforcement notice relates may, at any time before the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is to take effect, appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice, whether or not a copy of it has been served on him.
§ (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an appeal may be brought on any of the following grounds—
- (a) that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the notice relates or, as the case may be, that a
1014 condition or limitation alleged in the enforcement notice not to have been complied with ought to be discharged; - (b) that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a breach of planning control;
- (c) that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice has not taken place;
- (d) in the case of a notice which, by virtue of section 87(3) of this Act, may be issued only within the period of four years from the date of the breach of planning control to which the notice relates, that that period had elapsed at the date when the notice was issued;
- (e) in the case of a notice not falling within paragraph (d) of this subsection, that the breach of planning control alleged by the notice occurred before the beginning of 1964;
- (f) that copies of the enforcement notice were not served as required by section 87(5) of this Act;
- (g) that the steps, required by the notice to be taken exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control or to achieve a purpose specified in section 87(10) of this Act;
- (h) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any step is to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.
§ (3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals, no appeal against the notice may be brought on the ground specified in subsection (2)(a) above.
§ (4) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
§ (5) A person who gives notice under subsection (2) of this section shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within such time as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (6) of this section, a statement in writing—
- (a) specifying the ground on which he is appealing against the enforcement notice; and
- (b) giving such further information as the regulations may prescribe.
§ (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under this section, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—
- (a) may prescribe the time within which an appellant is to submit a statement under subsection (5) of this section and the matters on which information is to be given in such a statement;
- (b) may require the local planning authority to submit, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement indicating the submissions which they propose to put forward on the appeal;
- (c) may specify the matters to be included in such a statement;
- (d) may require the authority or the appellant to give such notice of an appeal under this section as may be prescribed, being notice which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is likely to bring the appeal to the attention of persons in the locality in which the land to which the enforcement notice relates is situated;
- (e) may require the authority to send to the Secretary of State, within such period from the date of the bringing of the appeal as may be prescribed, a copy of the enforcement notice and a list of the persons served with copies of it.
§ (7)The Secretary of State—
- (a) may dismiss an appeal if the appellant does not comply with subsection (5) of this section within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (6); and
- (b) may allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (6) of this section within the period prescribed by the regulations.
§ (8) Subject to subsection (9) below, the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
§ (9) The Secretary of State shall not be required to afford such an opportunity if he proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of this section or to allow an appeal and quash the enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
§ (10)If—
- (a) a statement under subsection (5) of this section specifies more than one ground on which the appellant is appealing against an enforcement notice; but
- (b) the appellant does not give informaton required under paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to any of the specified grounds within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (6) of this section,
§ (11) Where an appeal is brought under this section the enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
§ (12) Schedule 9 to this Act applies to appeals under this section including appeals under this section as applied by regulations under any other provision of this Act.
§ Appeals against enforcement notices—general supplementary provisions.
§ 88A.—(1) On the determination of an appeal under section 88 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the enforcement notice or for varying its terms.
§ (2) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, or give directions for varying its terms, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or to the local planning authority.
§ (3) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining such an appeal in favour of the appellant that a person required to be served with a copy of the enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard the fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.
§ Appeals against enforcement notices—supplementary provisions relating to planning permission.
§ 88B.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, on the determination of an appeal under section 88 of this Act the Secretary of State may—
- (a) grant planning permission for the development to which the enforcement notice relates or for part of that development or for the development of part of the land to which the enforcement notice relates;
- (b) discharge any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission was granted;
- (c) determine any purpose for which the land may, in the circumstances obtaining at the time of the determination, be lawfully used having a regard to any past use of it and to any planning permission relating to it.
§ (2) The powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section may not be exercised where the enforcement notice related to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals.
§ (3) In considering whether to grant planning permission under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the subject matter of the enforcement notice, and to any other material 1017 consideration; and any planning permission granted by him under that subsection may—
- (a) include permission to retain or complete any buildings or works on the land, or to do so without complying with some condition attached to a previous planning permission;
- (b) be granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;
§ (4) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice, other than an enforcement notice relating to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of minerals, is brought under section 88 of this Act, the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permission for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under subsection (1) of this section,—
- (a) any planning permission granted under that subsection shall be treated as granted on that application;
- (b) in relation to a grant of planning permission or a determination under that subsection, the Secretary of State's decision shall be final; and
- (c) for the purposes of section 34 of this Act, the decision shall be treated as having been given by the Secretary of State in dealing with an application for planning permission made to the local planning authority.
§ (5) On an appeal under section 88 of this Act against an enforcement notice relating to anything done in contravention of a condition to which section 71 of this Act applies, the Secretary of State shall not be required to entertain the appeal in so far as the appellant claims that planning permission free from that condition ought to be granted.".
§ 2.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 89 of that Act (penalties for non-compliance with enforcement notice)—
- (a) for the words "an enforcement notice" there shall be substituted the words "a copy of an enforcement notice (other than a notice alleging a material change of use of land or alleging that a particular use of land is in contravention of a condition imposed on the grant of planning permission"; and
- (b) the words "(other than the discontinuance of a use of land)" shall cease to have effect.
§ (2) In subsection (4) of that section (continuing failure to comply with enforcement notice) 1018 for the words "£50" in paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "£100".
§ (3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (5) of that section:—
- "(5) This subsection applies where an enforcement notice contains any requirement relating to a use of land or requires that any conditions or limitations shall be complied with in respect of a use of land or in respect of the carrying out of operations on land.
- (5A) In a case where subsection (5) above applies, if there is a contravention of a requirement of the enforcement notice—
- (a) where the requirement in question is a requirement to discontinue the use, any person who uses the land or causes or permits it to be used in a manner in which the notice requires that it shall not be used; and
- (b) in any other case, any person who is responsible for failure to comply with the requirement,
- (5B) In subsection (5A) above "the statutory maximum" means the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (that is to say £1,000 or another sum fixed by order under section 61 of that Act to take account of changes in the value of money).
§ 3. In section 90 of that Act (power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice)—
- (a) in subsection (1)—
- (i) in paragraph (a), after the word "served" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of"; and
- (ii) the word "further" shall be omitted;
- (b) in subsection (7), for the words "£50" (daily fine for continuing offence) there shall be substituted the words "£100"; and
- (c) in subsection (9)—
- (i) after the word "that" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of"; and
- (ii) for the words "87(4)" there shall be substituted the words "87(5)".
§ 4. In section 91 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice)—
- (a) in subsection (1), after the word "steps", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "which by virtue of section 87(7)(a) of this Act"; and
- (b) in subsection (2)—
- (i) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been"; and
- (ii) for the words "87(2)" there shall be substituted the words "87(3)".
§ 5. In section 92(1) of that Act (effect of planning permission on enforcement notice) after the words "service of" there shall be inserted the words "a copy of".
§ 6. The following section shall be inserted after that section:—
§ "Register of enforcement notices.
§ 92A.—(1) Every district planning authority shall keep, in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order, a register containing such information as may be so prescribed with respect—
- (a) to enforcement notices; and
- (b) to stop notices,
§ (2) This section applies—
- (a) to enforcement notices issued; and
- (b) to stop notices served,
§ (3) A development order may make provision—
- (a) for the entry relating to any enforcement notice or stop notice, and everything relating to any such notice, to be removed from the register in such circumstances as may be specified in the order; and
- (b) for requiring a county planning authority to supply to a district planning authority such information as may be so specified with regard to enforcement notices issued and stop notices served by the county planning authority.
§ (4) Every register kept under this section shall be available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.".
§ 7. In section 93 of that Act (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—
- (a) in subsection (1)(a) (which provides, among other things, that compliance with an enforcement notice in respect of the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works does not discharge the notice) after the word "the" there shall be inserted the word "completion,";
- (b) in subsection (5) (offence of reinstating or restoring buildings or works demolished or altered in compliance with enforcement notice) for the words from "and shall be liable" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "and shall be liable—
- (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
- (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine."; and
- (c) the following subsection shall be added after that subsection:—
(6) In subsection (5) of this section "the statutory maximum" means the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 1020 (that is to say, £1,000 or another sum fixed by order under section 61 of that Act to take account of changes in the value of money.".
§ 8. In subsection (7) of section 94 of that Act (certification of established use)—
- (a) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been"; and
- (b) after the word "where" there shall be inserted the words "the copy of".
§ Listed Building Enforcement Notices
§ 9. The following sections shall be substituted for sections 96 and 97 of that Act:—
§ "Power to issue listed building enforcement notice.
§ 96.—(1) Where it appears to the local planning authority that any works have been or are being executed to a listed building in their area and are such as to involve a contravention of section 55(1) or (4) of this Act, they may, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the effect of the works on the character of the building as one of special architectural or historic interest, issue a notice—
- (a) specifying the alleged contravention; and
- (b) requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified—
- (i) for restoring the building to its former state; or
- (ii) where the authority consider that such restoration would not be reasonably practicable, or would be undesirable, for executing such further works specified in the notice as they consider necessary to alleviate the effect of the works which were carried out without listed building consent; or
- (iii) for bringing the building to the state in which it would have been if the terms and conditions of any listed building consent for the works had been complied with.
§ (2) A notice under this section is referred to in this Act as a "listed building enforcement notice".
§ (3) A copy of a listed building enforcement notice shall be served, not later than 28 days after the date of its issue, on the owner and on the occupier of the building to which it relates and on any other person having an interest in that building, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice.
§ (4) Subject to section 97 of this Act, a listed building enforcement notice shall take effect on a date specified in it.
§ (5) The local planning authority may withdraw a listed building enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to issue another) at any time before it takes effect.
1021§ (6) If they do so, they shall forthwith give notice of the withdrawal to every person who was served with a copy of the notice.
§ (7) Where a listed building enforcement notice imposes any such requirement as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(ii) of this section, listed building consent shall be deemed to be granted for any works of demolition, alteration or extension of the building executed as a result of compliance with the notice.
§ Appeal against listed building enforcement notice.
§ 97.—(1) A person having an interest in the building to which a listed building enforcement notice relates, may, at any time before the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is to take effect, appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice on any of the following grounds—
- (a) that the building is not of special architectural or historic interest;
- (b) that matters alleged to constitute a contravention of section 55 of this Act do not involve such a contravention;
- (c) that the contravention of that section alleged in the notice has not taken place;
- (d) that the works were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building;
- (e) that listed building consent ought to be granted for the works, or that any relevant condition of such consent which has been granted ought to be discharged, or different conditions substituted;
- (f) that copies of the notice were not served as required by section 96(3) of this Act;
- (g) except in relation to such a requirement as is mentioned in section 96(1)(b)(ii) of this Act, the requirements of the notice exceed what is necessary for restoring the building to its condition before the works were carried out;
- (h) that the period specified in the notice as the period within which any step required thereby is to be taken falls short of what should reasonably be allowed;
- (j) that the steps required by the notice for the purpose of restoring the character of the building to its former state would not serve that purpose;
- (k) where such a requirement as is mentioned in section 96(1)(b)(ii) of this Act is imposed, that the works required by the notice exceed what is necessary to alleviate the effect of the works executed to the building.
§ (2) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
1022§ (3) A person who gives notice under subsection (2) of this section shall submit to the Secretary of State, either when giving the notice or within such time as may be prescribed under subsection (4) of this section, a statement in writing—
- (a) specifying the grounds on which he is appealing against the listed building enforcement notice; and
- (b) giving such further information as the regulations may prescribe.
§ (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure which is to be followed on appeals under this section, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may make any such provision in relation to appeals under this section as may be made in relation to appeals under section 88 of this Act by regulations under subsection (4) of that section.
§ (5) The Secretary of State—
- (a) may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with subsection (3) of this section within the prescribed time; and
- (b) may allow an appeal and quash the listed building enforcement notice if the local planning authority fail to comply with any requirement of regulations under this section corresponding to regulations made by virtue of subsection (4)(b), (c) or (e) of section 88 of this Act.
§ (6) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
§ (7) The Secretary of State shall not be required to afford such an opportunity if he proposes to dismiss an appeal under paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of this section or to allow an appeal and quash the listed building enforcement notice under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
§ (8) If—
- (a) a statement under subsection (3) of this section specifies more than one ground on which the appellant is appealing against a listed building enforcement notice; but
- (b) the appellant does not give information required under paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to each of the specified grounds within the time prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) of this section,
§ (9) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the listed building enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending 1023 the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
§ (10) Schedule 9 to the Act applies to appeals under this section.
§ Appeals against listed building enforcement notices supplementary.
§ 97A.—(1) On the determination of an appeal under section 97 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the listed building enforcement notice or for varying its terms.
§ (2) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, or give directions for varying its terms, if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or to the local planning authority.
§ (3) Where it would otherwise be a ground for determining such an appeal in favour of the appellant that a person required to be served with a copy of the listed building enforcement notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard that fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.
§ (4) On the determination of such an appeal the Secretary of State may—
- (a) grant listed building consent for the works to which the listed building enforcement notice relates or for part only of those works;
- (b) discharge any condition or limitation subject to which listed building consent was granted and substitute any other condition, whether more or less onerous;
- (c) if he thinks fit, exercise—
- (i) his power under section 54 of this Act to amend any list compiled or approved under that section by removing from it the building to which the appeal relates; or
- (ii) his power under subsection (10) of that section to direct that that subsection shall no longer apply to the building.
§ (5) Any listed building consent granted by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of this section shall be treated as granted on an application for the like consent under Part I of Schedule 11 to this Act, and the Secretary of State's decision in relation to the grant shall be final.".
§ 10. In section 98(4) of that Act (penalty for continuing failure to comply with a listed building enforcement notice) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".
§ 11. The following section shall be inserted after section 99 of that Act—
§ "Effect of consent under section
§ 99A.—(1) If, after the issue of a listed building enforcement notice, consent is granted under section 56A of this Act
1024§ 56A on listed building enforcement notice.
§ for the retention of any works to which the listed building enforcement notice relates, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken which would involve the works not being retained in accordance with the consent.
§ (2) If the consent is granted so as to permit the retention of works without complying with some condition subject to which a previous listed building consent was granted, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken for complying with that condition.
§ (3) The preceding provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a failure to comply with the listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of that notice ceased to have effect."
§ 12. The following section shall be substituted for section 100 of that Act:—
§ "Enforcement by, or by direction of, the Secretary of State.
§ 100.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local planning authority and, (in Greater London, also with the Greater London Council), to be expedient that a listed building enforcement notice should be issued in respect of any land, he may issue such a notice; and any notice so issued by the Secretary of State shall have the like effect as a notice issued by the local planning authority.
§ (2) In relation to a listed building enforcement notice issued by the Secretary of State, the provisions of section 999 of this Act shall apply as if for any reference in that section to the local planning authority there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."
§ 13.—(1) In section 103 of that Act (enforcement or duties as to replacement of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders, in subsection (3) (appeals to the Secretary of State) the words from "and the provisions" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
§ (2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—
- "(3A) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State, which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based.
- (3B) On any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
- (3C) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the notice under this section shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
- (3D) On the determination of an appeal under this section the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to his determination, including where appropriate, directions for quashing the notice or for varying its terms [in favour of the appellant].
- (3E) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice under this section [or give directions for varying its terms] if he is satisfied that the [informality, defect or errors is not material]".
§ (3) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "enforcement notice", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been".
§ 14. The following section shall be substituted for section 104 of that Act:—
§ "Penalty for non-compliance with notice as to wasted land.
§ 104.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a notice has been served under section 65 of this Act.
§ (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take any steps required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
§ (3) If at any time after the end of the period so specified any of those steps have not been taken, and any person does anything which has the effect of continuing or aggravating the injury caused by the condition of the land to which the notice relates, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
§ (4) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (1) of this section has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the owner of the land he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who then became the owner of the land (in this section referred to as "the subsequent owner") brought before the court in the proceedings.
§ (5) If, after it has been proved that any steps required by the notice have not been taken within the period allowed for compliance with the notice, the original defendant proves that the failure to take those steps was attributable, in whole or in part, to the default of the subsequent owner—
- (a) the subsequent owner may be convicted of the offence; and
- (b) the original defendant, if he further proves that he took all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the notice, shall be acquitted of the offence.
§ (6) If, after a person has been convicted under the preceding provisions of this section, he does not as soon as practicable do everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable— 1026
- (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 for each day following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled; or
- (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.
§ (7) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with a notice is a reference to the period specified in the notice for compliance with it or such extended period as the local planning authority may allow for compliance with the notice."
§ 15. In section 108(1) of that Act (enforcement of orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of building or works)—
- (a) for the words from "section" to "thereof" there shall be substituted the words "section 51 or 51A of this Act, the use of land for any purpose is required to be discontinued, or any conditions are imposed in relation to the land"; and
- (b) in subsection (1)(a) (fine for continuing offence) for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".
§ 16. In subsection (2) of section 109 of that Act (enforcement of control as to advertisements)—
- (a) for the words "£100" there shall be substituted the words "£200"; and
- (b) for the words "£5" there shall be substituted the words "£20".
§ 17.—(1) In section 243(1) of that Act (which limits the right to question the validity of enforcement notices, listed building enforcement notices and notices under section 65 which are served on owners and occupiers of waste land) the words "on which such an appeal may be brought" shall be substituted—
- (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "specified section 88(1)(b) to (e) of this Act"; and
- (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "specified section 97(1)(b) to (e) of this Act".
§
(2) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (2) of that section:—
(2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not apply to proceedings brought under section 89(5) of this Act against a person who—
(2A) In any case where the enforcement notice was issued before the coming into force of Part VII of the Local Government, Plan-
1027
ning and Land Bill subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if—
§ (3) In subsection (3) of that section the words "on which such an appeal may be brought" shall be substituted for the words "specified in section 105(1)(a) to (c) of this Act".
§
18. The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 246 of that Act (appeals to High Court relating to enforcement notices and similar notices):—
(1) Where the Secretary of State gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part V of this Act against—
the appellant or the local planning authority or any other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Secretary of State to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court.(1A) Where the Secretary of State gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part V of this Act against a notice under section 130 of this Act, the appellant or the local planning authority may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Secretary of State to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court".
§ 19. In section 207(2)(b) of that Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to planning control and enforcement) for the word "or", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words ", notice or copy of a".
§ 20. In section 271 of that Act (application to local planning authorities of provisions as to listed buildings) after the words "service of" there shall be inserted the words "copies of".
§ 21. In section 247(1) of that Act (ecclesiastical property)—
- (a) after the word "notice" in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or copy of a notice"; and
- (b) after that word, in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or copy".
§ 22. In subsection (2)(c) of section 280 of that Act (rights of entry) for the word "or", in the second place it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "notice or copy of a".
1028§ 23. In subsection (1) of section 284 of that Act (power to require information as to interests in land) after the word "notice", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "copy of a notice".
§ 24. In Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (functions under, and amendment and modifications of, enactments relating to town and country planning)—
- (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 24(1)(b):—
- "(b) issuing enforcement notices under section 87 or serving stop notices under section 90,"; in paragraph 29, for the word "served", in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "issued"; and
- (c) in paragraph 51(2)—
- (i) after the word "made", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the word "issued"; and
- (ii) after the word "make" there shall be inserted the word "issue"."").
§ The noble Lord said: I wish we were able to deal with this amendment as smoothly as we dealt with the last few amendments because, again, this amendment really deals with a matter which should have been included in the Bill. It seeks to improve the enforcement procedures, and was agreed between the local authority associations and the Government, which was reflected by its inclusion in the No. 1 Bill. Of course, one hardly need say that that Bill is in fact still awaiting its Second Reading by your Lordships' House. In particular, this amendment increases the penalties for breach of the regulations, in line with inflation. Through passage of time, those penalties may not be as high as they should have been. I understand that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines of this amendment when parliamentary time is available. This, I hoped, would be in the next Session of Parliament, but I am given to understand that that is highly unlikely; and even more problematic is the Session afterwards.
§ What I find very odd with regard to the Government's willingness or otherwise to accept amendments to the present Bill to bring in some of the universally accepted provisions in the earlier Bill is the arbitrary way in which they accept those amendments they are prepared to accept and not those they are not prepared to accept, and the arbitrary nature of them. Amendment No. 9, moved by the noble 1029 Viscount, Lord Ridley, brought back into this Bill a 12-page schedule, and this was accepted. Admittedly, my amendment brings back into the Bill a rather longer schedule than the schedule brought back by Lord Ridley, but it does not really seem that the length or the size of the schedule is any good reason why it should not be included.
§ I understand that because of the hurried way in which the No. 1 Bill was cobbled together there are some technical faults in the schedule as it now stands. But the department, I believe, knows exactly the nature of the faults. Indeed, the department, if pressed very hard, could come forward with a schedule at Report stage which would meet the particular faults which have been detected in the schedule since it was first included in the No. 1 Bill. I feel very strongly that it would be wrong to leave this matter over for another two or three years because of lack of parliamentary time and that it would be wiser to grapple with this problem now and to do something in the present Bill rather than defer it until parliamentary time becomes available.
§ I hope that the noble Lord will take that point. The proposals are ones which will be positively welcomed by all concerned with effective planning, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to be as co-operative with regard to this particular amendment as he was with the amendment of Lord Gainford and with my two earlier amendments in trying to knock them into shape. I am sure that that would be the right thing to do with this amendment as well. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSBefore my noble friend answers that, understand entirely what has happened and it would be very unfair of me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about some of the details of the amendment he has put down. But as a person who, from time to time—indeed, not altogether infrequently—has to use these parts of the Town and Country Planning Act, I should be interested—if one looks, for instance, in page 23 of the Marshalled List, at the new subsection (2) of the proposed inserted new Section 88B of the Town and Country Planning Act—to know why one cannot ask for the grant of planning permission 1030
where the enforcement notice related to a breach of planning control consisting in the winning and working of mineralswhen we have not got most of the rest of the minerals bit of the No. 1 Bill in this Bill at all. I do not think that, standing on its own as this subsection would, without any of the other provisions as to minerals, an insertion of that sort would be very sensible.On the next page, page 24, there is a new subsection (5) of Section 88B which, with the greatest respect, appears to me to be inconsistent with the provisions of the new Section 88(2)(a) on page 19. I only say that to the noble Lord because, as a matter of fact, a number of people's rights, a number of people's emotions, a number of people's money and a good deal of time and energy goes into this sort of activity under the Town and Country Planning Act. If we put it in—and I understand that he says that there are deficiencies noted by the department—and do not get it right at this stage of the Bill in the second House, we are probably going to do a good deal of damage. Therefore, I counsel a little caution before my noble friend accepts the amendment of the noble Lord opposite. I think perhaps it would be better if it were considered a little further.
Lord PONSON BY of SHULBREDEI think that I should be quite satisfied and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, would be satisfied as well, if the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, were able to give us an assurance that the Government would be able to come forward with a Bill on the lines of this amendment during the next Session of Parliament.
§ Lord BELLWINI am grateful to my noble friend. He illustrated the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, knew I was going to make; namely, that there is no difference between us as to the motives. We recognise the tremendous amount of preliminary work that was put into this, even going back to 1975, by George Dobry and other such eminent people who were concerned in this field. The fact is that for whatever reason the schedule is a complex one; it contains a large number of drafting errors. Therefore we could not possibly take it on at this time.
1031 I must compliment the noble Lord on having his signals plugged in so well that he was telling me—and I was listening with interest—when it was likely that we could come forward with something else. I was going to say that it was our intention to come forward with this in the proper form as soon as the legislative opportunity presented itself. When he said it would not be next year or the year after, I was listening with fascinated interest. So far as I know, we certainly have not got round to discussing that. I cannot tell him when because I truly do not know. He will have to be content with the knowledge that there is no difference about wanting to do it. We must take the point—we all do, surely—that that unquestionably has to be right. The amendment is longer than many Bills; it has 23 pages. It is something on its own.
We all want the same thing. I hope it will not be too long, but I cannot tell him exactly when it will come. I hope it will be not as long ahead as the noble Lord fears and that his fears are not so well founded as he feels.
§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDEBefore I withdraw the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord can assure the Committee that he will use such pressure as he possesses to see that this legislation is brought forward sooner rather than later.
§ Lord BELLWINI certainly undertake to speak to colleagues on this point to see where we stand with it. There is no difference between us on leaving it.
§ Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDEMay I withdraw the amendment?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 12 [Further planning amendments]:
§ 11.8 p.m.
§ Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 207:
§
Page 156, line 18 at end insert:—
("( ) The following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (4) of section 36 of that Act (appeals against planning decisions):—
and that person shall not less than seven days before reporting to the Secretary of State consult the applicant and the local
1032
planning authority on the findings of fact to be included in his report and shall have regard to their comments."").
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the Secretary of State being misled by factual errors in an inspector's report. It seems there are such arrangements in Scotland to give an opportunity of up to 14 days. In my amendment we ask for only seven days for the reporter, as he is called, to provide a copy to every party to the inquiry and to consider comments on it.
§ There have been examples recently in England which show a need for such an arrangement in this country. There was an appeal in Staffordshire where the inspector left out of his report an undertaking not to leave open and unrestored at any time more than 10 acres of the site. That undertaking was fundamental to the applicant's case. There was another one about minerals extraction, which I will not go into. Suffice it to say that there are examples where inspectors have made errors of fact, and the object of this amendment is to give an opportunity for errors of fact to be put right before a report is made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINThis amendment would add an additional stage to the procedure for all those planning appeals which fall to the Secretary of State to decide if there has been a local inquiry. It goes wider than the recommendation of the Franks Committee which was adopted in Scotland, that the parties should, if they wished, have an opportunity of proposing corrections to the factual part of the inspector's report in such cases. The report would have to be sent in every case and would give an opportunity for submitting further argument.
I do not wish to rest on points about technical defects in the drafting, though I think it worth mentioning that if the principle were accepted a more detailed procedure would have to be provided. But I cannot, when we are looking for every possible means of speeding up the procedure on planning appeals, accept a proposal which would lead to more delay, and, in my view, quite substantial delay, in all appeals submitted to the Secretary of State. It might be a different matter if significant errors were frequent, but it is actually very rare for a material 1033 error of fact to be shown. I wonder whether my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNI wonder whether my noble friend would reconsider that reply, because I should have thought it was very unlikely that it would lead to any considerable delay. This is a common aspect of procedure at inquiries under various Acts, and it seems to me imperative that the parties should have an opportunity to correct the facts, not to produce new arguments. It cannot lead to new arguments. It is a question of correcting the facts, and this is all that is being asked for. I commend this amendment to my noble friend.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSI am very sorry, but I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I can think of a number of cases where I should have been all too pleased to have had an opportunity to correct quite inadvertent facts and omissions in an inspector's report, which led to subsequent litigation and was of no great advantage to anybody. The difficulty is that it is not just a matter of the applicant and the local planning authority.
These days, for no doubt extremely good reasons, inspectors South of the Border—and, I am sure, reporters North of the Border—are prepared to allow virtually anybody who wishes to come and make representations, to have his say. The pure volume of, first, the actual planning appeals and, secondly, the parties or the people who have taken part in them, would seem to be a wholly different matter in England and Wales from what it is in Scotland, and I should have thought it was simply the amount of paper work that made this impracticable.
There is no difficulty, in the end, if a mistake of fact has been made. There is an appeal procedure. If it is sufficiently important, the courts will correct it. There is an opportunity for sending it back. Thank goodness! it is not used very often. But I really think that to give an opportunity for all the parties who had made representations before the inspector to have the opportunity to comment, even if they could succeed in doing it, with the postal services, in seven days, would involve the Government in a very 1034 great deal of time-consuming work which would not be warranted.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNWith great respect, that is not what the amendment says. It says,
consult the applicant and the local planning authority".
§ Lord DRUMALBYNBut it does not follow that you have to consult all the parties.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSIf you do not consult all the parties who have been allowed, under the discretion given to the inspector at the inquiry, to correct all the facts that they said they had adduced at the inquiry, you will simply have trouble compounded. You will simply have to allow all the people who have had their say at the inquiry to join in this procedure. There is no alternative.
§ Lord BELLWINI am very grateful to both of my noble friends for their constructive comments. Of course, in that it is the Government's line, I feel happier with the observations of my noble friend Lord Colville. From everything which I have seen—and I know this only from another side—I believe that anything we can do that will avoid putting another step into the proceedings must be the right thing to do. For that reason alone, I hope that my noble friend may feel able not to press the amendment.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEI am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I must confess, with the greatest possible respect to my noble friend the Minister, that I am much more convinced by my noble friend Lord Colville than I am by him. However, perhaps if we have an opportunity to read very carefully the report of what has been said, we may come back at the next stage. There is still a point which has not really been taken up by anybody; that is, the appeals that seem to prove the point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pinned upon. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 209:
§
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—
("The following sections shall be inserted after section 54A of that Act—
§ "Listed Buildings
§ 54B.—(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to amend any list compiled under Section 54 of this Act and the amendment consists of the addition of a building to the list, he shall first give notice of the proposed amendment to the owner of the building which is proposed to be added to the list.
§ (2) The notice to be given under this section shall identify the building which is proposed to be listed and shall state—
- (a) the grounds for making the proposed amendment;
- (b) that objections and representations to the proposed amendment may be made in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days from the date of the service of the notice;
- (c) that if no objections or representations are duly made or any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may then confirm the amendment of the list.
§ (3) If the Secretary of State, having received objections or representations which are duly made, proposes to confirm the amendment of the list and the objections are not withdrawn, the matter shall be referred for determination by the Lands Tribunal.
§ (4) In this section "owner" has the meaning ascribed to it by subsection 7 of section 27 of this Act.
§ Power of Directions
§ 54C.—Where a notice has been given under section 54B of this Act, it may include a direction that the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to the building as if it were a listed building; and a direction so given shall take effect from the date on which the notice is served until—
- (a) the date on which the owner of the building is given notice under section 54((7) of this Act that the building has been included in the list, or
- (b) the date on which the Secretary of State gives notice that the building will not be included in the list, or
- (c) the date on which the Lands Tribunal makes an order directing that the building should not be included in the list, whichever is appropriate.
§ Power of the Lands Tribunal
§ 54D.—The Lands Tribunal shall have power, on the application of any person who is the owner of a building which is proposed to be included in a list compiled under the provisions of section 54 of this Act, to make an order directing that such a building shall not be included in the list, on being satisfied—
- (a) that the building is not of special architectural or historic interest; or
- (b) that the practical benefits of the inclusion of the building in the list are
1036 outweighed by the disadvantages thereof, or by such other circumstances of the case the Lands Tribunal may deem material
§ The noble Lord said: We come to listed buildings again. The purpose of this amendment is to give to owners of listed buildings two things that they do not now have: first, a chance to be consulted before the building is scheduled, and second, a right of appeal against a proposal to list. To me it seems quite extraordinary that these rights do not already exist. It is also to protect a building that it is proposed to list, during the consultation process, in a less cumbersome and more satisfactory way than that already provided for by the building preservation notice procedure.
§ The listing system imposes on an owner substantial legal obligations, breach of which can expose him to criminal proceedings. Even though Section 54(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 obliges the Minister to consult persons and bodies who have a special knowledge of historic buildings, there is no obligation to consult the owner, the person most directly affected by the listing. Many listings are made, quite understandably, on the basis of rather cursory examinations. I know of one case where a building was listed in the mistaken belief that it was the work of a particular architect. If the owner had been consulted by the department he could have told them that it was not.
§ I should like to explain, as briefly as possible, this rather long amendment. New Section 54B, which by means of Schedule 12 to this Bill is to be inserted into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, provides for notice of a listing proposal to be given to the owner. This notice must describe the grounds upon which the proposal is based and must give the owner 28 days in which to object. If the Secretary of State does not accept the owner's objections or any representations made therewith the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I should say that subsections (2) and (3) of this proposed new section are modelled on the Tree Preservation Order Regulations 1969. Unlike an owner of a listed building, an owner of trees has a right to be 1037 consulted and a right of appeal before a TPO is confirmed.
§ New Section 54C provides for protection of the building during the consultation period or pending the outcome of an appeal. The effect of such a direction would be, as it were, to freeze the situation from the moment the notice is given. I believe, as I shall explain in a moment, that this is a very necessary provision. A similar power already exists for a local authority under Section 58 of the 1971 Act, but protection under that section, I believe, lasts for only six months.
§ New Section 54D establishes the Lands Tribunal as the body to decide a listing appeal. I suggest that a planning inquiry, with the inspector appointed by the Minister, would not be appropriate because it is the Minister who also decides whether or not to list the building. There already is a precedent for referring this sort of matter to the Lands Tribunal under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1935; and there are good reasons, with which I shall not weary your Lordships, for making this the body to decide a listing appeal.
§ Finally, I suggest that, by making the listed building system fairer, one would make it stronger. For example, let us take the Firestone building in West London. Under the scheme I am putting forward by this amendment, that building would have been protected from the moment the owners were notified that a listing was being considered. I have no close knowledge of the case, but I suppose there is a chance that, had there existed an appeal procedure where the views of the owners could have been taken into account, then its demolition might conceivably not have been carried out over that bank holiday weekend. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINThe new clause would prevent the immediate listing of buildings of special architectural and historic interest. In consequence, it would become impossible to take speedy and effective action to protect such buildings when threatened with demolition. This problem is not solved by the related provisions of new Section 54C, to which I shall refer in a moment. Under the new section where the Secretary of State proposes to list a building the owner will 1038 have to be given notice of the proposal. He will have to be identified, and he may even have to be traced in order to do this. The owner will then have the right to object. If he exercises that right and cannot be persuaded to withdraw his objection, the matter will have to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination.
In a case where the proposal to list is in response to a threat to demolish, the delay involved may prove fatal since it will enable demolition to be carried out before listing can be determined. This problem is not solved by Section 54C, and I shall explain why when dealing with that section. It will be noted that under the present system of control the owner, and indeed the occupier, who may well be a different person, has to be informed of listing under Section 54 (7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Although there is no formal right to object, it is open to the owner and occupier to raise arguments directed to the criteria of special architectural or historic interest.
Alternatively, or in addition, such arguments can be pursued in connection with an application for listed building consent when it is possible to look at a specific proposal to carry out works and weigh the merits of that proposal against the merits of the building. I suggest that the existing procedure provides the best way of protecting the rights of the owner and occupier while at the same time ensuring the survival of buildings of special architectural and historic interest. The new clause will undermine the present system of control.
I should like to say something about the Lands Tribunal. It is an admirable body, but it is primarily concerned with the problem of land valuation, and I do not think it has either the expertise or the staff to deal with questions relating to buildings which are thought to be of special architectural or historic interest. I observe in passing that the new clause is silent about the way in which the Lands Tribunal is to deal with the matter. I am informed that the Lands Tribunal has always refused to regard itself as having any planning function. In its work under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act it is essentially dealing with power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land. Section 54 is 1039 about contractual matters, not public law. That section does not require specialist knowledge, and it certainly does not require the making of a judgment on criteria such as those affecting listing. Nor does Section 84 give the tribunal a government function, which is what Section 54 is concerned with.
There is a substantial body of case law to support our view that the tribunal would not wish for, indeed is not fitted for, the functions which this amendment seeks to put upon it, and I am quite sure that it would not welcome the enormous additional burden this new section and the following two seek to throw upon it. So far as I am aware, the tribunal has not even been consulted. That is why we could not accept this part of the amendment.
Clause 54B will not enable buildings to be given immediate protection, as is possible under the present system, because the protection it offers will take effect only when the owner has been identified, traced and given the requisite notice. It follows that it will not be possible to deal with an immediate threat to demolish. By the time protection is afforded under the new clause there may well be nothing to protect. We have all seen the regrettable disappearance of the Firestone factory before it could be listed. This new proposal, I suggest, will result in a multitude of Firestones, and I am certain that is not what my noble friend wants.
I have already in connection with Clause 54B voiced the objections which I have just made to the involvement of the Lands Tribunal, but this new clause would take matters further. Not only would it involve the Lands Tribunal in considering questions of special architectural and historic interest, but paragraphs (b) and (c) would appear to take the tribunal into questions of planning control and beyond, since there is no restriction on the circumstances which the new clause would permit the tribunal to deem material. This could allow owners to range very wide and go far beyond the range of the tribunal's existing functions. It would inevitably take the tribunal into areas with regard to which it has no expertise. In connection with this, it is relevant to point out that the tribunal could well find itself involved in difficult questions of planning 1040 control which it has no power to decide in a planning context. It would clearly be inappropriate for the Lands Tribunal to decide such matters when it has no effective responsibility for planning control.
I have much more about this, but I hope that in view of what I have said my noble friend may feel that the points are valid and therefore will not pursue his amendment.
§ Baroness BIRKWhile I supported the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in his last amendment, I find that I cannot in thus amendment. I entirely agree with what the Minister has said. The proposal is lengthy, complex and time-consuming, and introduces procedures which are totally unnecessary. The Minister is absolutely right when he points out that, although the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, may have been different, the protection to listed buildings would be far less than with spot listing and the present procedure. It is perfectly true that spot listing is sometimes tripped up, as it probably was over the Firestone building. With the present procedure, however, it is up to the Secretary of State and not removed from him to a Lands Tribunal which is concerned with land values and not with listed buildings and protection, and the definition of whether a building is of historic and architectural interest. I am therefore glad that the Government will not accept this amendment but will leave the procedures as they are at present.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSSI am sorry to keep disagreeing with my noble friends on this side of the House, at least in the text of what they say, but I think that my noble friend has a point. If it cannot be met by this amendment, and I think that the argument is overwhelmingly against it, could my noble friend on the Front Bench consider this? It is very easy to spot list a building because it is under threat or because some event in the locality has required the department to have a good comb through their list, and add about 50 per cent. more because some threat is seen. When it comes, as it will do or may do in due course, to the question of getting a listed building consent for an alteration or a demolition, that is the time when one can 1041 question whether the building was properly listed in the first place.
Unfortunately, a number of questions are asked in Parliament about the number of listed buildings to which listed building consent has been given in any particular year. Those questions never discriminate between the cases where the matter was obviously concerned with a Grade 1 building, where the greatest possible care has to be taken, and the one that was spot listed without more than five minutes' notice, where it is perfectly possible to argue that the department, in granting a listed building consent, was merely acknowledging that a mistake had been made in the first place.
It is very easy for those in charge of these matters to advise Ministers, who are rightly very sensitive about these matters, that once a building has been listed there is a prima fade case against any listed building consent whatever being granted. That cannot be right if you have no appeal procedure of the sort that my noble friend has suggested. If Ministers were a little more ready to concede the possibility that a mistake had been made by those who listed it, perhaps in a hurry, and that there was after all an opportunity for reconsideration of this matter at the listed building consent application stage, then I think that my noble friend would have achieved something. Can the Minister say two words on that?
§ Lord BELLWINI am, again, very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I should like to take it away, think about it and discuss it with those who have special knowledge of this field.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSI think that it is worth reiterating, if thought is given to an appeal procedure, that I hope that the Minister will stick strongly to the point that the Lands Tribunal must not come into this. At the moment we have to accept the decision of the Lands Tribunal on valuation because we recognise their expertise in valuation. But, if one feels that they are part of the planning procedure, it weakens the acceptance of their decisions on things to do with valuation. Let there be an appeal by all means, but not to the Lands Tribunal. That would injure the real work they have to do in the field of valuation.
§ Lord MIDDLETONI am most grateful for what my noble friends Lord Bellwin and Viscount Colville of Culross have said. I do not see why, if the Department of the Environment goes to the trouble of listing a building, it should not go to the trouble of finding out to whom it belongs.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin has deployed some very powerful arguments as to why my amendment is the wrong way to achieve what I am trying to do. I shall read most carefully what he has to say, and perhaps come back later. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 209A:
§
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—
§ The noble Baroness said: In Schedule 12 the Government have proposed a new system whereby if an application has been made or granted for any development involving the alteration, extension or demolition of a building any person can apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate. Once granted, this certificate would, for a period of five years, preclude the Secretary of State from listing the building and stop a local authority from serving a building preservation notice on it during that period.
§ The point of this amendment is that we believe it is essential that a local authority should be notified of such an application at the same time as the Secretary of State is asked for a certificate, so that they have the time to make appropriate inquiries and representations. This is not the time to go into the problems of the five-year period, where I can see there are certain "pros" but there are "cons" as well, but the local authority will eventually learn of such an application when the DOE writes to them for confirmation that the building is the subject of planning permission, although it may then be too late for effective representation. As I 1043 am sure the Minister is aware, when this was discussed in Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Tom King, said that there were some drafting errors in it but that he would be happy to consider this point, and I hope that now the Minister is going to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINWe are glad to accept the amendment.
§ Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 209B:
§
Page 156, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Before the issue of any certificate under sub-section (2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall notify such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, buildings of architectural or historic interest.").
§
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is rather similar and I hope I shall get the same response from the Minister. This is on the same point but states that the Secretary of State
shall notify such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, buildings …".
Here I am referring to amenity bodies such as the Ancient Monuments Society, the Council for British Archaeology, and so on, which in fact are listed in Appendix 3 of Circular 23/77, which was issued by the department when I was a Minister there.
§ The intention behind this amendment is to try to ensure that the same bodies are notified—not consulted; I hope the Minister will note that the word is "notified"—before the Secretary of State decides not to list a building which is under threat. I think this amendment is entirely compatible with the amendment which the Minister has just accepted and I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are quite happy with this addendum. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINThis amendment requires the Secretary of State first to consult a particular body of persons having special knowledge of buildings of interest before giving a certificate. The Historic Buildings Council are his statutory advisers. They are busy people who give liberally of their valuable time 1044 without payment, and Her Majesty's Government are indebted to them for that. We are not prepared to ask them to shoulder a further and as yet unquantifiable burden in examining every application under this provision. We do not know how many applications will result from it—it might be 20 or 200 or even 20,000. The council will be available to give their advice where it is needed, as they do already in listing matters, and really that is as far as we are prepared to go.
Nor could we accept, if that is what the noble Baroness intends, that the persons to be consulted shall be the national amenity societies. They are not the bodies of persons which were referred to in the 1971 Act and they cannot be presumed to be the persons referred to here. They are of course consulted by local planning authorities about applications for listed building consent involving demolition. If consent is refused there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. They are not consulted before a building is added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and we cannot give them a privileged place in the determination of applications made under this provision. I have much more that I could say on similar lines, but I think it all comes down to the fact that we really do not want to accept this amendment.
§ Baroness BIRKI think the Minister made that very clear. He did use the word "consult" which was originally in the amendment, but the word is now "notify", which is rather different. If we can be satisfied that the local amenity societies will be aware of this in their localities so that they do have the opportunity to make representations to local authorities, obviously in the face of opposition from the Government there is no point in pressing it, certainly at this time of night. I am glad the noble Lord understood that what I was getting at was not that all these applications should go to the Historic Buildings Council, which would obviously be impossible, but should be considered within the different localities. As long as there are means by which they are made aware of this and know that these buildings are going to be tied up for five years without being able to be listed, then one could see how that works and 1045 see the amenities societies' reports. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 11.37 p.m.
§
Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 158, line 37, leave out ("56A") and insert ("55(2A)").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is required to correct a technical error. Section 56A (5) is intended to prevent the new time-limiting condition from being applied to consents granted for works already carried out under new subsection 55 (2A). Instead of referring to subsection 55 (2A), Section 56A (5) incorrectly refers to Section 56A. I beg to move.
§
Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 158, line 38, at end insert—
("12. In section 101 of that Act delete the word "unoccupied".").
§ The noble Baroness said: This is rather a tricky little amendment. Up to now, under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act, local authorities have had power to carry out urgent repair works to listed buildings after giving not less than seven days' notice to the owner. This power is currently restricted to unoccupied buildings. It is felt essential, and has been put forward by several local authorities, that in order to protect our heritage they should have power to carry out urgent repair work to any listed building whether occupied or unoccupied.
§ I said it was tricky because I am well aware of the problems that may arise where a house is occupied. There are listed buildings both occupied and unoccupied which are falling into decay. It does seem to me that local authorities should have discretion—there will not be a mandatory power—if they can do so (it is a question of resources) to insist on repairs to a building that is occupied. Where the person living in the building is unable to afford to do the repairs, it would be impossible for the local authority to claim back from him, but we are all aware of listed buildings which have been shamelessly neglected by owners who could repair them but will not do so. If the local authority does the repairs itself, it can reclaim the cost. I beg to move.
1046§ Lord BELLWINWe share the noble Baroness's concern to strengthen local authorities' powers to require repairs to listed buildings, but I fear that the proposal in its present form is not acceptable. Entering occupied premises against the wishes of the owner to carry out work is always open to the very real objection of the invasion of privacy and rights of property.
As the noble Baroness will well know from her own experience in my department, finding a solution to the problem of securing repairs to neglected listed buildings, whether occupied or not, is far from easy. For example, Section 115, which empowers authorities to serve a repairs notice on unoccupied or occupied buildings requiring works to be carried out for the proper preservation of the building, has no teeth unless an authority is prepared to follow it up with compulsory acquisition under Section 114. Understandably, many authorities are reluctant to make a compulsory purchase order. While they want the building repaired, they do not necessarily wish to own it.
Nevertheless, we accept that there is a case for strengthening the powers currently available and have in fact completed a considerable amount of preliminary work aimed at augmenting the present powers by introducing an alternative to compulsory purchase under Section 114. This would involve seeking a court order to carry out the repairs specified in a notice served under Section 115 if they have not been carried out within the statutory two month period. If the order were granted, the authority or the Secretary of State could also seek to recover the cost of the work. The procedure would be complicated by the fact that there is a limit of £2,000 on the amount that can be recovered in the county court—higher claims have to be the subject of an order from the High Court.
Unfortunately, there simply has not been time to work out the details of this procedure and consult the local authority associations in time for their inclusion in this Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will agree that it is important to get any amended procedure right and I hope, therefore, that with the assurance that the department have proposals in mind which they will discuss in due course, she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ Baroness BIRKAs the Minister is not accepting the amendment, I can now say that it was probing in nature and what he said was what I was hoping to hear—namely, that the department is considering it and it is something that it has in mind. I hope it will bring forward legislation when it has sorted out what, I am the first to admit, is an extremely difficult problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 210B not moved.]
§ 11.43 p.m.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS moved Amendment 211B:
§
Page 159, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—
(4A) A local planning authority shall have the power to declare by resolution that a conservation area within its area, or any part thereof, shall be an area within which there shall be applied the limitations on the display of advertisements contained in Regulations made under subsection (3) hereof in respect of areas of special control":
Provided that, before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish a notice of the proposed resolution and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing.".").
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to give to local planning authorities the power to declare a conservation area to be an area of special control for the control of outdoor advertising. Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 provides that an area which requires protection on grounds of amenity interest may be defined as an area of special control for the purpose of controlling outdoor advertising. But, while the power to designate a conservation area is conferred upon the local planning authority, the power to designate an area of special control is reserved to the Secretary of State.
§ From the information given to us by local authority associations it is clear that many local authorities would much like to control advertising in areas of 1048 special amenity interest, such as conservation areas, but that they are deterred by the need to argue their case with the Department of the Environment, which may order a public inquiry to consider objections. The result is that out of over 5,000 conservation areas in England and Wales, hardly any of them have as yet been separately designated as areas of special control.
§ Up until now these powers have mostly been used, very properly, for the restriction of advertising in the countryside. The relatively few conservation areas—less than 2 per cent.—which are protected in this way, are mostly villages which happen, by chance, to be situated in a large rural area in which advertising is restricted. Thus, in respect of the vast majority of conservation areas—over 98 per cent.—the powers provided for this purpose are not being used. The clear intention of Parliament is consequently being ignored.
§ In order to remedy this situation we consider that local planning authorities should be given the power to designate the whole or part of a conservation area as an area of special control without the need to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. In this connection it should be noted that in respect of other much more important issues, such as the adoption of local plans which may radically affect the whole character of a town, the final decision is entrusted to the local planning authority unless the Secretary of State in very exceptional cases decides to intervene.
§ We do not, of course, wish to deprive shopkeepers of their right to advertise on their premises their names and the goods and services that they provide. What we particularly want to restrict are glaring posters on the blank walls of the corner houses of side roads all along the high street. These posters, such as the ones that advertise the beer that reaches every part, are mostly unconnected with the neighbouring shops and traders. Equally, we wish to discourage large advertisement hoardings, such as those around the vacant site opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, which for several decades have disturbed the harmony of an area of architectural quality.
§ I know that there are some who consider that objections should be examined by an independent person appointed by 1049 the Secretary of State. But I suggest that it is wrong to think that the democratically elected local authority is not both anxious and well qualified to weigh local views and interests.
§ It is, of course, not our intention that objections should be lightly brushed aside. In fact, it will be seen that since we first tabled this amendment in order to make our intentions clear, we have added a specific proviso, which requires the local authority to publicise its proposals and to give due consideration to any objections which may be submitted to it. Likewise, I wish to make it clear that we are not suggesting that local authorities should automatically restrict advertising in all conservation areas all over the country. What we are proposing is that they should have the discretionary power to do so where they consider it appropriate.
§
I also think it right to draw attention to the advice given in a circular on this subject issued by the Department of the Environment, Circular No. 23/77. After recognising that many conservation areas include commercial centres, the circular specifically asks local planning authorities:
to ensure that advertising displays do not detract from the appearance of areas of architectural or historic interest".
But that, of course, is precisely what conservation areas are. Thus it will be seen that all we are asking is that local authorities should be given the power to do what the Government have themselves asked them to do.
§
This amendment has the full support of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and of the Association of District Councils, the two types of authorities concerned with this matter, and it is in complete accord—and I wish to emphasise this—with the main purpose of this Bill which, as the very first words of its Long Title state, is:
to relax controls over local government".
I hope, therefore, that in that spirit the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment.
§ Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALEI had the privilege of following in the noble Lord's footsteps in two great departments of state, and I have the greatest admiration for what he has 1050 achieved. I am therefore delighted to be associated with him in commending this amendment to your Lordships, and I should indeed hesitate a very long time before disagreeing with the noble Lord on a matter of this kind.
As the noble Lord explained, whet we are seeking to do is something which is so simple as to be obvious. We are asking the Secretary of State to allow local planning authorities automatically to be able to do what he himself has asked them to do. There is nothing very revolutionary in that. The converse, of course, is complete nonsense. Mr. Heseltine has won a well deserved reputation for his action in conservation matters. I hope tonight that he is going to enhance that reputation still further by allowing the noble Lord to accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, has moved.
§ 11.51 p.m.
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONMay I say how delighted I am to be associated with the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys. His record in the field of conservation needs no praise from me; it is apparent to everyone who is the least bit concerned about this matter. When the legislation was originally put forward I had thought that this omission was a mistake on the part of the drafters of the Bill. Then I received a letter from the Law Society telling me, as a member, that I ought to oppose the amendment that I had already put my name down to support, on the grounds that local shopkeepers should be given the opportunity before a public inquiry of making their feelings felt about advertising in conservation areas.
The amendment that the noble Lord put down to this amendment between the publication of the first and second Marshalled Lists has covered that problem. The words
Provided that, before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish a notice of the proposed resolution and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing"—are a perfectly adequate protection for local shopkeepers, advertising agents and others who have an interest in this matter.My experience in local government over a fair number of years on the planning 1051 committee is that every opportunity is given to people who want to object to a proposal by a local authority to in any way limit their freedom, to have it discussed, debated and considered at the local authority level. The noble Lord was right when he said that this is a Bill which is supposed to give more freedom to local government, and this is an excellent area where we could give considerably greater freedom to local government and at the same time make the appearance of conservation areas that much more attractive.
I think in particular of an area, a splendid square in the town in which I live. It is said to be the best square in the United Kingdom outside Edinburgh. I do not know whether that is true or not. It has been made a conservation area, but its appearance is considerably marred by the fact that the local authority is not able to control the extremely garish advertisements not only proposing the advantages of a certain kind of beer or lager, as the noble Lord suggested, but also the virtues of firms of estate agents, purveyors of secondhand furniture, and a variety of other uses which diminish enormously the beauty and attraction of this square.
The reason given for making the conservation order was its architectural beauty. Now it is completely marred, not by the architecture of the square but by the quality and unattractive nature of the advertisements which the local authority is unable to do anything about because of the enormous, complex and expensive machinery that was involved in making the kind of order it is suggested the local authority should be entitled to make.
Most of us here are concerned about conservation not only in rural areas but, perhaps more importantly, in urban areas, particularly in the North of England where, God knows! we have little enough to conserve. Mrs. Jennifer Jenkins was in my part of the world recently and she said, "You have some absolutely lovely Victorian, Edwardian and late Georgian buildings here. Why have you not done something to improve the external appearance of them?" We had to tell her that the procedures for doing that were long, complex and expensive. Therefore, as a person living in a northern industrial 1052 town, I welcome this proposal as being perhaps more important than conserving rural areas and villages in rural areas. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment, which I hope will have the support of the Government.
Baroness VICKERSI support the amendment, which has been so excellently moved. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I thought the Bill was designed to give more relaxation from the Minister and more control to local authorities. Under this process, however, every special control scheme will have to receive the approval of the Secretary of State. Surely it is better to leave this to the people on the spot, for they can get hold of their local authorities, put their complaints to them and get things moving much more quickly. I know the public have a right to object to special control proposals at a local public inquiry. I have attended many such inquiries and on occasions have given my views, but public inquiries take a long time and are expensive. Also, when the inspectors arrive they often have little knowledge of the local people and the matters into which they are to inquire.
We have received a great deal of literature—expensive literature in many colours—from the Outdoor Advertising Council but we have received nothing from the Chamber of Commerce, which represents local shopkeepers, and I was therefore interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, because not only in the rural areas but in the towns there have been no protests by the local shopkeepers on this subject, and I hope the Minister will give full consideration to the points that have been made so that we may see local government being given more authority under the Bill than seems to be the case at the present time.
§ Baroness TRUMPINGTONI cannot believe the Minister will not consider with great sympathy the points that have been made. Peter Ustinov in his autobiography said that when his Polish mother arrived by boat for the first time in England she thought every town was called Bovril and that it was only when she reached the biggest Bovril of them all that it became apparent to her that she was in London. While that is a slightly 1053 exaggerated view of what might take place, my noble friend has raised a very important matter and I wish to support him.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKI just want to issue a little warning from this side of the Committee. I am thinking of what those of us who come from the country districts see in our schools. While coming through the lovely city of St. Albans earlier today I was stopped by the traffic lights when I saw glaring above me a mighty advert declaring, "Tell your kiddies to collect the labels off these beans so that your school can get what it wants". What a pathetic state for education to be in! That apart, I can think of nothing worse than advertisements all over our country villages, although nobody objects to the local butcher or whatever advertising local plays or other events in his shop window at Christmastime. Such adverts can be quite cheerful in fact.
§ Lord SANDFORDI rise to confirm what my noble friends have said in support of the amendment—namely that it is strongly supported by the Association of District Councils.
§ 12 midnight
§ Lord DRUMALBYNIt would be a pity if the debate were to pass without any voice being raised in favour of the present situation. As I understand it, the primary difference between a conservation area and an area of special control lies in the fact that in a conservation area the local authority has control over all advertisements individually. It can prevent advertisements from being set up; it can cause them to be taken down. The position is different in an area of special control. As my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys mentioned, in such an area the only advertisements allowed are those in which the size of the lettering is limited, which give the name of the advertiser, state the goods that he sells or the activities that he pursues, and are displayed on his own premises. Advertisements not displayed on premises belonging to the advertiser are not allowed, regardless of whether they would be on special sites, pillars, bus shelters, or wherever. That is the position.
1054 Under the present law, all such advertisements must come down as soon as an order is made. However, because of possible interference with advertisements that may have been displayed for 30 years, it is thought right that before such an order is made the Secretary of State must be consulted and give his approval. Notice must be given in the form of the draft order; that has to be publicised. In the last 30 years there have been objections in only a third of all the cases that have been the subject of local public inquiries.
The opinions of others have not been mentioned. It must not be assumed that everybody is as allergic as some Members of your Lordships' Committee to the appearance of advertisements. In order to protect these rights, and to give an opportunity for objections, it is thought right to give this power of appeal. It is not a control by central Government of local authority; it is a power of appeal; and the person who presides over the local public inquiry is an independent person, who is totally impartial.
Surely this is the right procedure. My noble friend who, as has been said, has done so much in the Civic Trust for the improvement of amenity, must surely know what is the position in a conservation area. There is already a control of individual advertisements, and therefore a control of all advertisements in that area. As I say, that is totally different from what happens once part of that conservation area is made into an area of special control.
May I remind the Committee that the area of special control is intended to give protection on grounds of amenity. As I say, it is a blanket control. Commercial advertisements would be restricted to business premises and to non-illuminated advertisements on the premises, stating the name of the trader and the goods sold, or other activity carried on there. However tasteful and harmonious the advertisements might be individually, however much they might fit in, they would simply not be allowed in an area of special control. They would not be allowed to be erected; worse still, those already displayed would have to be taken down. No compensation would be payable, except for the cost of taking them down. At present, such undiscriminating restrictions can be imposed only by order of the Secretary of State.
1055 What the amendment proposes to do is to give local planning authorities power to declare an area of special protection by resolution, and the only preconditions are that before the resolution is actually passed a copy of the proposed resolution must be published, and any objections in writing must be considered. There are no plans; no requirements as to the form of publication or as to the period for the public to think about it; no written notice given to those individuals likely to be affected by it: just dull uniformity by resolution.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMay I interrupt my noble friend? Why does he say "might"; that before passing such a resolution the planning authority "might" publish a notice and "might" consider any objections? It says here quite clearly:
… before passing such a resolution, the local planning authority shall publish … and consider any objections which may be communicated to it in writing".
§ Lord DRUMALBYNI apologise to my noble friend. It must have been a slip of the tongue; I meant to say "must". I am told I did say "must"; I am much obliged.
So that is the situation. I really do not think it is right to depart from this on the slender grounds given. In the last 30 years there have been only three local public inquiries a year. Surely that is not too big a price to pay for the freedom of the individual.
§ Baroness BIRKI have my name down to this amendment, and in order to shorten the proceedings I must try not to take part in the debate, but I really must, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been saying—and I know that certainly his past experience in the advertising field has been great. I am afraid he has a lot of this quite wrong. He has made the same mistake as there is in this glossy publication referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. Mr. Michael Shersby, MP, is reported as saying, in Hansard, that
the proposal was deliberately excluded"—this was when the Bill was brought forward again—because it would be absurd to try to ban advertisements entirely in conservation areas. Some 1056 such areas have within them a thriving commercial centre".What seems to have been lost sight of since it was moved and then supported by my noble friend Lord Greenwood is that this is giving local authorities the power to exercise control in the most sensitive parts of the most sensitive conservation areas. It does not mean that the whole of a conservation area becomes controlled; it does not mean that any part of it need be controlled. What it does mean is that, instead of the matter going to the Secretary of State, the local authority can exercise its own discretion on an issue of concern to its own people, and exercise its own view as to the quality of the environment. Through the Housing Bill and also through this Bill we have seen the number of powers taken away from the local authorities. Here is an opportunity for local authorities to be encouraged to take an interest in their own environment. Who in fact make up the local authorities? There are local businessmen, there are professional men and there are people who have as great an interest in advertising their own wares as the noble Lord and others who take the same view as he does.All we are asking is that at a time when the sophistication and complexities of the visual content of advertising have become so enormous that advertising is harmful to conservation areas and areas of beauty, it should be up to the local authority to have the chance to decide. The addendum to this amendment really covers the position for anybody who wants to object or who feels that it is unfair to them. I think we must be quite clear that we are discussing what the amendment is about. We are not discussing what another amendment might or might not say. This is what the amendment says and we should stick to that. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment which, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (who, with great respect, has got it a little wrong), has had the support of all noble Lords speaking from all sides of the Committee.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said most of what I would wish to say. In view of the fact that my noble friend Lady Vickers said that the industry had not made any stand against this, the views I will convey reflect those of the Confederation of British 1057 Industry. The noble Baroness has just tried to persuade the Committee that there is no serious ground for complaint or worry about this amendment. But the proposed amendment would allow local authorities to make any conservation area into an area of special control for advertisements without the important current safeguards of having to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment and of having a local inquiry. The amendment refers to consideration of any objections in writing. This is very different from a local inquiry. It would facilitate a total ban on commercial poster advertising in many large town centres. It has been put to us that everyone wants that. I do not think they do. Throughout the United Kingdom it would eliminate even small posters in bus shelters and kiosks such as often enliven shopping precincts; and, on the whole, many of our fellow citizens welcome them.
The most important point is, clearly, that this is against the general interest of British trade and industry. It is ridiculous to suggest that advertisements have no purpose in life. If that were so, people would not want to spend millions on them. As to the question of making extra Government control, this is no increase on the present situation. The Government control, as my noble friend has said, has had to be exercised in a very limited way. I am afraid that most of my noble friends and the noble Lords opposite who spoke in favour—not to mention my noble friend who moved the amendment—have emphasised one side of the picture to convey an impression which, on the whole, is not strictly giving the right picture at all.
§ Lord NEWALLMay I say one or two words in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said in suggesting that there is not very much support against this amendment? I have a lot of respect for my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys and for many others who spoke in favour of the amendment. I am amazed by some of the things I have heard. There is one massive point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn mentioned. There seems to be no difference made between the areas of special control and the other areas we have been talking about. The special control areas were 1058 designed primarily for the countryside and for special places round castles and cathedrals and so on. Conservation areas cover busy shopping centres for which special control was never intended.
The planning authorities already have full powers to control advertisements in conservation areas. They do not need any more. They have the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1969 as amended in 1972 and 1977. If, perhaps, they are not doing their job, that is no reason to blame the advertising people. The majority of the general public like advertising in their shopping areas and it is in their interest as well as the interest of local traders. The special advertisement control is confiscatory; it bans a lot of advertisements without any compensation at all. Parliament has given local traders the right to object to special advertisement control orders and to have their objections heard in any local public inquiry. The House of Lords has been quoted many times for giving the tights and private liberties to individuals. I do not think that the amendment is any good.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Lord BELLWINI congratulate my noble friend on the eloquence with which he has introduced this amendment and I recognise that it is supported by the associations representing metropolitan authorities and district councils and by the Civic Trust. My noble friend has shown all his well known qualities of assiduity and resolution; and I pay tribute to his own and his supporters' sincerity on the amendment because I know that they are concerned to see that conservation areas are indeed what their name implies. It is therefore with particular regret that I find myself having to resist his amendment because—however well-meaning and sincere its intentions—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I consider that the amendment is misconceived and its practical effect may well be misunderstood by my noble friend and his supporters, for reasons I will try to explain.
But let me first identify what I hope is common ground between us; namely, a desire to improve the quality of outdoor advertising in conservation areas throughout the country. My noble friend and his supporters believe that it would 1059 greatly help to achieve this objective if every planning authority in the country had the power to declare, by means of a resolution carried by a majority vote in planning committee, that any conservation area within their own area should become the equivalent of an area of special control of advertisements, so that considerably stricter controls over outdoor advertising would then apply to it. I believe that this approach is misconceived, both in principle and in practice. To explain why I take that view I must ask the Committee to consider in some detail the statutory provisions on which these two different environmental designations are based and their practical operation.
My noble friend's approach in this amendment is misconceived because he mistakenly equates conservation areas, designated under the provisions of Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, with areas of special control of advertisements, defined in Section 63 of that Act. In fact, the two types of area serve quite distinct planning purposes. Conservation areas are simply defined by local planning authorities wherever the authority decides that an area of special architectural or historic interest merits that designation: their main purpose is to enable an authority to take steps to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and there is no provision for the planning authority's decision to create a conservation area to be questioned in any way, or for it to be approved by the Secretary of State.
The result is that there are now just over 5,000 conservation areas in villages, towns and cities throughout England and Wales, comprising a very wide range in the quality of their environment. Some of them have additionally been designated as "outstanding", but that is largely intended to enable certain grants to be paid: it is not an assessment of their environmental quality. In any event, that provision is being altered by this Bill. By contrast, areas of special control of advertisements are specified in subsection (3) of Section 63 of the 1971 Act as being
either rural areas or areas other than rural areas which appear to the Secretary of State to require special protection on grounds of amenity".1060 The result is that a little over one-third of the entire land area of England and Wales has now been designated by planning authorities, and approved by Ministers, as being within areas of special control of advertisements. Virtually all the land covered by this designation is predominantly rural and it has always been accepted that a special case would have to be made out on amenity grounds in order to convince a Minister that an urban, or predominantly urban, area should become an area of special control, and thus involve stricter standards of control over outdoor advertising.I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend that, in planning terms, conservation areas are not, and were never intended to be, environmentally equivalent to areas of special control of advertisements. That is why we consider that planning authorities should not be enabled simply to pass a resolution which would provide, in effect, that the two different types of area are to be regarded as exactly equivalent to each other for the purpose of controlling outdoor advertising.
My noble friend has argued most ingeniously that this amendment is consistent with one of the Bill's main purposes, because it seeks to remove yet another control exercised over town halls from Whitehall. But I am afraid his argument overlooks the reason why there is a procedure, carefully specified in Schedule 2 to the Control of Advertisements Regulations, for a planning authority to have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval, usually following a public inquiry, for any proposal to make an order defining an area as an area of special control of advertisements.
This is not just a question of removing yet another tiresome, bureaucratic control over local government. There are two excellent reasons for requiring ministerial approval for one of these orders. First, the introduction of an area of special control means that outdoor advertising will be more strictly limited within that area than it is elsewhere: for example, posters for general advertising are completely prohibited and there are stricter limits on the permitted height of advertisements above ground level. The result is that some of the existing advertisements in the conservation area which do not conform to the stricter limits would have 1061 to be either removed or modified; in other words, existing use rights would be taken away or reduced.
I have much more on similar lines which I think makes the case, but I should like to conclude by saying that I hope my noble friend accepts that there is no difference between us about the desirability of improving the quality of outdoor advertising in many conservation areas. Where we differ is in our choice of means. My noble friend believes that planning authorities ought to have this additional power to make a resolution and they should be freed entirely from ministerial control in exercising it. My answer to him is in three short parts.
First, I consider that planning authorities already have adequate powers to control outdoor advertising in conservation areas and elsewhere, and they do not therefore need this additional power. Secondly, I believe that ministerial approval is an essential part of the arrangements for designating areas of special control of advertisements, if local planning authorities are to remain publicly accountable and the stricter controls over advertisements in an area of special control are to be accepted as fair and reasonable by people whose legitimate interests are involved. Thirdly, I think we should give the advertising industry an opportunity to show, by means of their voluntary initiative in introducing a code of practice for
§ outstanding conservation areas, what improvements can be made without further legislation for this purpose. I therefore wonder whether my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment and to use his good offices with the local authority associations, and, as President of the Civic Trust, to foster this voluntary initiative with all his considerable energy.
Lord DUNCAN-SAN DYSI must say that I am very disappointed by the reply given by the Minister. I cannot help feeling that he himself may feel a little unhappy about it, because there is obviously so much feeling in favour of this amendment, as there was on the Second Reading of this Bill. The definition of an area which it is appropriate to designate as an area of special control is an area of special amenity interest. The definition of a conservation area is an area of architectural or historic interest. If an area of architectural or historic interest is not an area of special amenity interest, I do not know what it is. I hope that the Government will think again between now and Report stage. Meanwhile, I am afraid that I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment.
§ 12.24 a.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 211B) shall he agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 49.
1063| CONTENTS | ||
| Ardwick, L. | Greenwood of Rossendale, L. [Teller.] | Ridley, V. |
| Avebury, L. | Sandford, L. | |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Hanworth, V. | Simon, V. |
| Birk, B. | Houghton of Sowerby, L. | Stedman, B. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Kaldor, L. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. | Stewart of Fulham, L. |
| Croft, L. | Minto, E. | Stone, L. |
| David, B. | Mishcon, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Peart, L. | Underhill, L. |
| Duncan-Sandys, L. [Teller.] | Pitt of Hampstead, L. | Vickers, B. |
| Elliot of Harwood, B. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Whaddon, L. |
| Evans of Claughton, L. | Renton, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Airey of Abingdon, B. | Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor) |
| Avon, E. | De La Warr, E. | |
| Balerno, L. | Denham, L. [Teller.] | Harvey of Tasburgh, L. |
| Bellwin, L. | Digby, L. | Hatherton, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Drumalbyn, L. | Henley, L. |
| Boardman, L. | Elton, L. | Holderness, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Ferrers, E. | Kemsley, V. |
| Cathcart, E. | Fortescue, E. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Gainford, L. | Long, V. |
| Cork and Orrery, E. | Gowrie, E. | Lyell, L. |
| Craigmyle, L. | Mackay of Clashfern, L. | |
| Margadale, L. | Newall, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| May, L. | Pender, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Middleton, L. | Redesdale, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Mottistone, L. | Sandys, L. [Teller.] | Vivian, L. |
| Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Soames, L. (L. President.) | Westbury, L. |
| Murton of Lindisfarne, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. | Young, B. |
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ 12.33 a.m.
§ Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 212:
§
Page 159, line 48, at end insert—
("16A. The following section shall be inserted after section 99 of that Act:—
Effect of listed building consent on listed building enforcement notice.
99A.—(1) If, after the issue of a listed building enforcement notice, consent is granted under section 55(2A) of this Act for the retention of any work to which the listed building enforcement notice relates, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken which would involve the works not being retained in accordance with the consent.
(2) If the consent is granted so as to permit the retention of works without complying with some condition subject to which a previous listed building consent was granted, the listed building enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in so far as it requires steps to be taken for complying with that condition.
(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a failure to comply with the listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of that notice ceased to have effect.".").
§ The noble Lord said: It is necessary to ensure that, when a listed building enforcement notice has been served and listed building consent is subsequently granted under paragraph 6, the enforcement notice shall cease to have effect in relation to the works for which consent has been granted. Under new Section 99A(1), the requirements of any listed building enforcement notice which are not in accordance with the terms of a consent subsequently granted under paragraph 6, shall cease to have effect. New Section 99A(3) is designed to ensure that a person failing to comply with a listed building enforcement notice before the relevant provisions of the notice cease to have effect shall still be liable to prosecution. I beg to move.
§ Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 212A:
1064
§
Page 160, line 33, at end insert—
("In section 250 of that Act (grants for development) the following paragraph shall be inserted after subsection (1)(b):—
(1A) For the purpose of the previous subsection "redevelopment" shall include the renewal or refurbishment of any building on land which is situated within a designated conservation area where such works form a part of an overall redevelopment scheme consisting also of the erection of a new building or buildings."").
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 212A. I apologise to the Committee for needing to make a rather longer speech than my last one. Section 250 of the 1971 Act relates to redevelopment grants and it makes land acquired by a local authority for redevelopment ineligible for a grant to the extent that it contains buildings which are to be preserved and refurbished rather than redeveloped as part of an overall redevelopment scheme. This applies particularly within the conservation area.
§ The situation has occurred in Chesterfield recently where, with the active support of the Department of the Environment, a large site owned by the council in a conservation area has been redeveloped so as to incorporate an external frontage to the market place, consisting of a number of buildings, some of which were listed. The acquisition value of the land on which the buildings were being retained was considerably more than that of the back land on which new buildings were being erected. Likewise, the cost of the refurbishments of the retained buildings would, pro rata, not differ greatly from the cost of the new building work.
§ The department accepted that part of the site on which new building was taking place qualified for grant under Section 250, but they were precluded from giving a grant in respect of the land covered by the retained buildings, because the buildings would not technically be redeveloped, notwithstanding the fact that the refurbishment was so extensive that it involved the replacement of roofs, floors and internal walls. Such a preclusion runs entirely contrary to the spirit of Circular 2377, which was quoted earlier, 1065 which stresses the need to preserve our architectural heritage in various ways by taking steps to preserve buildings of value either in their own right or because of the contribution they make to the entire scene.
§ This amendment, therefore, is advocated to remedy the situation, to provide additional resources which will positively encourage local authorities to rehabilitate buildings within conservation areas, whenever feasible or appropriate to do so, and particularly when existing structures can be used and monies saved.
§ Lord BELLWINThis amendment would allow redevelopment grant to be paid towards the cost of acquiring buildingsin conservation areas for refurbishment or renewal, provided they were part of a redevelopment scheme. I must point out, as the noble Lord has said, however, that grant would not be payable towards the costs of refurbishment or renewal as such. The Secretary of State already has adequate and more appropriate powers to assist the preservation or enhancement of outstanding conservation areas in Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, and these powers are being extended to all conservation areas by the amendment in paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of this Bill.
As was pointed out in another place, the present amendment would have the effect of providing funds for conservation purposes additional to those already available under Section 10 arrangements by extending redevelopment grant to something for which it was not designed. At a time when we are having to restrain public expenditure, the Government cannot accept such a course, and I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord SANDFORDCertainly, under the assurance that it can be done in some other way, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 12.38 a.m.
§ Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 213:
§
Page 162, line 25, at end insert—
(" . The following section shall be inserted after section 277B of that Act—
§
"Conservation Areas
277C.—(1) Where a local planning
1066
authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State propose to designate any areas as a conservation area under the provisions of Section 277 of this Act, there shall first be published a notice of any such proposed designation in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area of the local planning authority.
(2) The notice to be published under this section shall identify the area which is proposed to be designated and shall state—
(3) Before designating any area as a conservation area the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall have regard to any objections or representations to the proposed designation which are duly made by persons appearing to them to have a material interest in any such designation.".")
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to give the owners of land and buildings in a conservation area a chance to be informed before the area is scheduled. I hope that this amendment will not present the kinds of difficulties to the Government that arose from my amendment on listed buildings. The amendment does not provide, because of the difficulties involved, for the giving of notice to every owner in a proposed conservation area. Notice of the proposal to designate should, however, be published.
§ There is also provision for objections and representations to be made, and all that is required is that the Secretary of State should have regard to any such representations, provided that they are made by persons having a material interest in any such designation. This seems to me to provide the very minimum of consultation that is surely the right of affected areas to expect—a right which they do not now possess.
§ A right of appeal against a designation is not included in this amendment because the conservation area restrictions are not so onerous and, because there could be such a large number of areas involved, it would be impractical. It is not right that persons with a material interest in this kind of designation should not be informed and should not be able to be heard, even to the minimum extent 1067 provided here. It is, I should have thought, an improvement to the existing system which could be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINLocal planning authorities have been able to designate conservation areas since 1967. Over 4,500 such areas have been designated, and I am sure that most people would agree that they have made a useful contribution towards the preservation of our architectural heritage. There are, however, few obligations placed on owners in conservation areas. The only significant ones are that consent is required for the demolition of any buildings in the area whilst under Section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 the local authority must be notified of any intended felling of, or major alteration to, trees. Normal planning control is unaltered, but local planning authorities are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area when exercising all their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
We have stressed the need for public interest and participation if conservation is to be successful. However, I do not think it is necessary to implement a statutory requirement to undertake publicity and consultation before conservation areas are designated. This would be particularly inappropriate in a Bill which aims at reducing controls over local authorities and cutting back on unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. In view of what I have said, I wonder whether my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
§ Lord MIDDLETONI really do not see why they should not be informed simply by publication. I am a little disappointed but I will look at what has been said and will withdraw the amendment now, with a view possibly to coming back at a later stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 163, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
§ The noble Baroness said: I think the Minister may be going to accept this 1068 amendment, so I will say very briefly that all it does is to change "shall" to "may", which will relieve the burden which otherwise would be put on the Historic Buildings Council and frustrate the intention of delegating to local authorities the supervision of town schemes. If the Minister is prepared to accept that I think it would improve the clause enormously. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELLWINYes, we do accept that.
§ On Question, Whether Schedule 12, as amended, shall be the twelfth schedule to the Bill?
§ Baroness BIRKThere is one point I should like to raise on the schedule, and in doing so I wish to congratulate the Government on the grants made and on outstanding conservation areas, which is helpful to villages, and in fact the whole conservation impact which goes through this Bill. On page 157, at line 42, the words used are "contract for redevelopment", and, although it is extremely good that demolition will not now take place until, as I understand it, the contract is signed for new building, I should like to get a clear statement from the Minister that the contract for redevelopment means the last contract that was made, and means the building contract. If this is watertight in legal terms that is all I need to know.
I understand that other people who are concerned about it would like to see the word "building" before "contract", but I am told that there are some legal difficulties about that, which I do not understand. I should like to be sure that the contract is the last one to be made and that it does not mean that a contract may be made some years before and then a case would be made out for the demolition of the building.
§ Lord BELLWINI cannot give the noble Baroness the assurance she wants. I will certainly look at what she has said to find out exactly what the precise interpretation is. As is often the case, one can give an "off the cuff" interpretation, but I prefer not to do that, and in those circumstances I wonder whether she will let it go.
§ Clause 80 agreed to.
§ Clause 81 [Town and Country Planning—Scotland]:
§ 12.45 a.m.
§
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 73, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) In section 113(6) of that Act after the words "section 102(1)(a)", the words "to (c)" shall be omitted").
§ The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment in consequence of Clause 81(4) of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 82 agreed to.
§ Schedule 13—[Bodies to whom Part X applies]:
§ 12.45 a.m.
§
Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 164, line 28, at end insert ("other than bodies corporate having capital which is divided into shares or stock owned, or capable of being owned, by members of the public.")
§ The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to exclude from the schedule and so from Part X of the Bill such statutory undertakers as are bodies corporate having capital divided into shares or stock owned or capable of being owned by members of the public. That is rather a mouthful and a rather inelegant way of expressing it, and I hope we might find a better way before we finish with the Bill. It means those statutory undertakings which are public companies. That does not mean, of course, publicly owned companies.
§ I believe an amendment of this kind is necessary if the intention of the Government expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum, and indeed throughout, is to be achieved and if Part X of the Bill is to be brought within the Long Title. The Explanatory Memorandum says that Part X deals with land owned by public authorities. The heading to Part X in the arrangement of clauses is "Land held by public bodies". That is repeated in the rubric to Clause 82. In the Long 1070 Title we read that the Bill is "to make provision for a register of public land" and so on.
§
It may come as a surprise to some that not all statutory undertakers are public bodies but this is the fact, and it seems to me that that fact was overlooked by the Government and perhaps by the draftsmen in preparing this Bill. I do not feel I can ask your Lordships to accept my word for this, but I obtained the information from an extract from Halsbury's Laws of England. He says of statutory undertakers:
They are usually but not invariably public authorities. In some instances they may be private commercial undertakings".
§ I can give an example which many of your Lordships will recognise, because we discussed it in this House about four years ago in the debate on the future of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. This House voted to have that undertaking—a statutory undertaking—conveyed to European Ferries rather than into the clutches of the British Transport Docks Board. Noble Lords sitting opposite, who were then on this side of the House, argued fiercely for that. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was in the van; he was one of the tellers. There were actually 12 members of the present Government who voted for that. I think they would have been extremely surprised to be told that a Conservative Government later on was going to say that this private enterprise was to be thrown into the pot with public authorities. It is not a public authority at all, and therefore its land, I submit, is not public land.
§
On those grounds it seems to me the Government ought to accept this amendment, or, if not willing to do so, at least think out the best way of expressing what I am sure is right. If there is any doubt about the Government's intentions, these were made perfectly clear by the Minister of State in another place during the 26th sitting of the Standing Committee on 22nd April (col. 340). When he was questioned as to what he would do if his attention was called to vacant land in the hands of a private company, he replied:
The honourable gentleman knows that this part of the Bill applies to publicly-owned bodies.
It seems to be perfectly clear that—to take the same example again—the Felixstowe
1071
Dock and Railway Company is not a publicly-owned body and should not be included in Part X of the Bill. There is one last point that I should like to make before I hope to hear that the Government are prepared to accept at least the spirit of this amendment. If your Lordships look at Schedule 13 you will see a long list of public bodies. Your Lordships will not immediately, I suspect, spot—as I did not spot—the public bodies that were left out of that list. But, with the aid of the Notes on Clauses, I was told that bodies that are excluded from the list are British Aerospace and British Airways. What is the reason for that? Are these bodies to be reconstituted as Companies Act companies? If it is right to exclude those bodies because they are going to become Companies Act companies, surely it is right to exclude bodies that are already companies. I do not think that I need say any more. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of AVONThe provisions of Part X are not intended to apply to the private sector, only to public sector bodies. There are, however, bodies which straddle the two sectors in a variety of ways. There are certain bodies which would be regarded as essentially within the private sector yet which carry on statutory undertakings.
Having said that, we do indeed accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. This amendment is a helpful attempt to clarify the position between certain bodies which straddle the public and private sectors. The definition of statutory undertaker in Schedule 13 is taken from Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. It is virtually a common form definition. The effect is that certain Companies Act companies operating only minor undertakings under statute nevertheless come within the provisions of Part X. Though we are sympathetic to the general objective of clarifying this point in the Bill, the amendment goes too far in that it would exclude some bodies whose main functions are to operate statutory docks and ports. I cannot, therefore, recommend your Lordships to accept the amendment.
However, I undertake to look more sympathetically at the next amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord 1072 Cledwyn, and bearing that in mind I very much hope that the noble Viscount will be able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Viscount SIMONI am really astonished at what the noble Earl has said. I agree, of course, that there are some statutory undertakers which are public bodies. There are also some statutory undertakers which—as was said in Halsbury's Laws that I quoted—are private commercial undertakings. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is one of those. It is not a public body. The noble Earl referred to bodies whose main functions included the work of statutory undertakers. The Felixstowe company is wholly a statutory undertaker, but it is in the private sector.
I am really astonished that the Conservative Government have thought it right to include a private undertaking in what they call a list of public bodies. The noble Earl might argue that it is quite reasonable for any body, even for private undertakings, to have their vacant land put on to these registers. I do not know whether, if that were proposed, I would object to it. But it is when we come to Clause 87 that we are in real trouble because there the Secretary of State has power to direct one of these bodies to dispose of land on terms which he lays down. I cannot believe that a Conservative Government want to put on the statute book that the Secretary of State—not necessarily this one, but some future Secretary of State—can require a private company to sell its land on terms and conditions which the Secretary of State lays down. I wonder whether the noble Earl would be willing to look at this again and perhaps have a little discussion about it between now and the next stage of the Bill, because I really think that this has been put in by mistake.
§ The Earl of AVONI am not absolutely certain whether the noble Viscount has looked at the next amendment which we believe rather more covers his point. I shall certainly look at this again, but we believe that the next amendment is the one that we would rather more like to accept.
§ Viscount SIMONI do not think that the next amendment meets the point that I am trying to make. In the circum- 1073 stances I will withdraw this amendment and possibly bring it back at a later stage if I am not satisfied.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 12.57 a.m.
§ Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 216:
§
Page 164, line 28, at end insert—
("Provided that where any persons carry on a business to the main purpose of which any such undertaking is merely ancillary those persons shall not be treated as statutory undertakers for the purposes of paragraph 18 above").
§ The noble Lord said: I rise with a sense of pleasurable anticipation to move Amendment No. 216. The Committee will have observed that this part of the Bill contains provisions giving powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct local authorities and other public bodies to dispose of land held by them which he considers is not being used or sufficiently used for the purposes of their undertaking.
§ The provisions operate by means of the compilation of registers for selected areas by the Secretary of State, affording him a power of direction and disposal of specified areas of land, including both the manner of disposal and the terms and conditions of the disposal. The Committee will also note that the local authorities and other public bodies affected are set out in Schedule 13 to the Bill at page 164. A number of bodies will probably be caught by these provisions because of the use of the concept of the statutory undertaker as an element in the definition. For example, in Pembroke in South Wales the Gulf Oil refinery is a statutory undertaker under the Gulf Oil Refining Act 1965 in relation to the railway at its Pembroke refinery, even though this is a very small part indeed of its overall undertaking. That is the kind of case which would be caught, and I do not think that it was ever the intention when the Bill was drafted that that sort of land should be included in the definition. I should have thought it strange if the Secretary of State took additional powers in relation to that sort of land merely because the company is a statutory undertaker in relation to other land some miles away.
§ Without taking any more of the time of the Committee at this stage, I think that the case is well made. It is common sense 1074 and I am glad to understand that the Government may be good enough to concede the point. I beg to move.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEThe CBI, upon whose advice I rely, certainly advises support for this amendment and did not particularly advise support for the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I suspect that that is because it feels that this amendment satisfactorily covers what is needed by industry. I hope that the noble Viscount may take some reassurance from that.
§ Viscount SIMONI have withdrawn my amendment, as the Committee knows, but I do not think that this amendment covers the point I was trying to make, although I am perfectly happy to support it. I go back to my standard example that I know was of such great interest to noble Lords opposite, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. It is not ancillary; it is wholly a statutory undertaker. It is not a question of the statutory undertaking being an ancillary business; it is the whole business of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which is a private company. I am really surprised that the noble Earl has said that the Government cannot take this out of the schedule. I must discuss that later on and see what we can do at the next stage of the Bill.
§ Lord AVEBURYI wonder whether there is a slight confusion in the minds of noble Lords opposite, in that they think that because the Felixstowe Docks is now a subsidiary of European Ferries it must be ancillary to the business of European Ferries, and that therefore the main purpose of the undertaking is that of European Ferries, and Felixstowe Docks is covered by this amendment. If the noble Earl can stand up and give us an assurance that the meaning of this amendment is such that it covers the Felixstowe Docks—and I very much doubt whether he can give any such undertaking—then of course my noble friend would perhaps be more satisfied that he is at the moment. But on any reasonable construction of these words I do not see how it can be pretended that it covers the case he has put forward.
§ The Earl of AVONWe seem to be in danger of going backwards. We have already dealt with Amendment No. 215, inasmuch as the noble Viscount has withdrawn 1075 it and we both agreed to have a look at it again. May I now go on to the Amendment No. 216? I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said. Though I consider that the provisions of Part X are sufficiently flexible to avoid awkwardness, I am persuaded that we should do something to clarify the point in Schedule 13 in so far as it relates to businesses to which an undertaking is merely ancillary. The Government are therefore willing to accept this amendment.
§ Lord AVEBURYSurely the noble Earl can answer the question? Does this amendment or does it not cover the case of the Felixstowe Docks? Yes, or no?
§ The Earl of AVONSpeaking off the cuff, which I do not like doing, we think not.
§ Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 83 agreed to.
§ Clause 84 [Register of land]:
§
Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 74, line 33, after ("State") insert ("having due regard to the date of acquisition of the freehold or leasehold interest").
§ The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see from paragraph (c) that one of the reasons for which a Secretary of State may register premises is if the land concerned is insufficiently used. Clearly there will be a stigma attached to land so registered, and this will be unjust when the land has been acquired fairly recently. I believe some assurance, or better a time limit, for the registration of land by the Secretary of State would help to encourage its early use. The object of this amendment is to make sure that the Secretary of State pays due regard to the fact that the land may have recently been acquired. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of AVONI take the point behind the amendment in that if a public body has only just acquired underused land they do not want to be directed to dispose of it. I doubt, however, whether the amendment is necessary. It would require the Secretary of State in deciding 1076 which land is unused or insufficiently used for the purpose of the register to have regard to the period of ownership of the land. But as the provisions are drafted, the Secretary of State will have regard to all relevant considerations in reaching his decision, not just this particular one.
The proposals as drafted give the Secretary of State widely drawn powers to obtain information about public bodies land. This will enable him to identify and draw his own conclusions about the land in which he is particularly interested for the purposes of registration. If he considers that initially only land held for a certain period should be regarded as unused, the provisions will enable him to call for information about such land, just as they enable him to exclude other classes or categories of land, for example, sites below one acre. It is not necessary to specify this in the legislation: it is better that the legislative framework is kept light and flexible.
Since the registers are not intended to be "black books", there is no good reason why public bodies should be reluctant to have their land listed in a register. On the one hand, if the body have recently acquired land against specific development proposals or for their more general planning functions so that it is to be retained, it should be straightforward to enter a brief note to that effect oil the register, perhaps indicating any intended short-term or temporary use.
On the other hand, even if they have owned a piece of land for only a short time, in new circumstances the case for its release may be overwhelming. In that event there may be distinct advantage for the owning bodies in having their surplus land on a register since this will provide additional publicity and thereby help with the disposal. There is merit in proceeding pragmatically on this, within the lightweight and flexible provisions to which I have referred. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEI was not entirely happy with that reply, which seemed to skate around the point I was making. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, and on the basis that I will have a good look at what my noble friend said, 1077 I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that I may wish to table a further amendment on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 74, line 37, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
§ The noble Lord said: I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 219, 232 and 240, which are similar, except that Nos. 232 and 240 apply to new towns. The purpose of this is similar to the previous amendments I have moved, with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to prevent the needless, careless and, in this case, inadvertent take of agricultural land for development. As I understand it, under this part of the Bill the Secretary of State will be empowered to have all land owned by public bodies or new towns put on a register and, having done that, the Secretary of State can, under Clause 87, direct the public body in question to dispose of it if it is not being used sufficiently.
§ For once I can welcome wholeheartedly the Bill's intention, for nothing is more infuriating to a farmer than to observe so much waste land which, according to an article by John Young in The Times last week, is increasing faster than it is being reclaimed. This register will, I hope, help to rectify this position. But the point which concerns me, and which I hope my amendment will solve, is the position of many acres of good agricultural land that have been acquired by public bodies in the past and which are apparently still being farmed, probably on licence, as the public body in question has not used it for the original purpose for which it was required. This land would probably be put on the register and, once on the register, it mould, in our opinion, be difficult to get it back into agriculture.
§ Accordingly, the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State, before entering this land on the register, to have regard to the keeping or returning of that land to agriculture. I would point out again that it would not force the Secretary of State to return all land to agriculture, though personally I wish that 1078 were possible; it simply places a duty on him to have regard to agriculture. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government as a reminder to future Secretaries of State, should we be unfortunate enough ever to have one who prefers, as they all seem to, to develop agricultural land before derelict acres.
§ The Earl of AVONI share my noble friend's concern to prevent the unnecessary loss of agricultural land to development. This is very much in the mind of the Secretary of State and the register proposals are in fact one of a number of measures the cumulative effect of which will, we hope, be to reduce the pressure to take more agricultural land away. I am afraid, however, that in practical terms the amendment confuses what is a process of registration with the use to which land is put. Clause 84(1) empowers the Secretary of State to keep a register of land which satisfies the conditions in Clause 84(2). Briefly, those conditions relate to the ownership and location of the land and to its being unused or insufficiently used for the purposes of the owning body's functions or their undertaking. Clause 84(3) empowers the Secretary of State to register so much of that land as he sees fit.
As the provisions are drafted, the Secretary of State may, in deciding which land to register, have regard to any relevant conditions. It is unnecessary specifically to refer to
the desirability of maintaining land in agricultural use".However, not only is it unnecessary, but I believe that it would be confusing to do so. With certain exceptions, notably the local authorities, the public bodies in Schedule 13 have limited functions in relation to agriculture and will not generally hold land unused or insufficiently used for such purposes.Little agricultural land as such is likely to be registrable. In the main, public bodies will have acquired, or be holding, land for a specific scheme or purpose, or against some future eventuality. The land may be in temporary use for a variety of purposes. I am sure that we would all want it to be so. But, usually, there will have been a planning permission or an indication for some ultimate use which is acceptable within the planning policies for the area. The register provisions 1079 are not intended to override appropriate planning control. Whether or not the Secretary of State registers land in temporary agricultural use, the owning body will not be prevented from seeking to put the land to use for those purposes permitted under planning law.
In effect, the question of whether or not the land has continued in the former agricultural use during an interim period, or the former agricultural use has ceased, is not fundamental to the decision as to whether land is underused for purposes of the owning body's functions or undertaking, and to whether the land should be entered on the register—a step which has the effect only of making the status of the land publicly known.
As I mentioned earlier, the amendment seems to imply that beyond the process of registration the Secretary of State will specify the "use" of land in a direction. That is not so. The provisions are not framed in that way; "use" is a factor of planning. Nevertheless, there are two ways in which the register provisions will work towards the noble Lord's objective. By making sure that unused land is used fully, particularly that already in the urban areas, we should ease the pressure of demand on agricultural land for development. Secondly, and more directly to the point of the amendment, in deciding whether or not to proceed with a proposed direction, the Secretary of State will consider any representations from the owning body which bear on the use to which the land will be put if a direction is not made, and these representations might relate to an intention to keep land in agricultural use, or revert to such a use, for the immediate future.
The noble Lord also referred to the case of disposals by the new towns. The type of disposals which they will be likely to make in practice will be developed land and the industrial and commercial assets thereon. At the very least, it is likely to be land which, while undeveloped, already carries planning approval for development in accordance with the master plan of the town concerned. We certainly do not envisage corporations selling off areas of agricultural land under the provisions of Clause 115. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEYI thank my noble friend for that reply, though, needless to say, I do not quite go along with it. I would remind him that there is much land, particularly in the new towns, that has not been returned to agriculture, but which could be. However, be that as it may, it seems to me that my noble friend is saying to me that I have the amendment in the wrong place. I rather tend to accept that. I shall come back on Report and try it in Clause 87, which is after the register, or maybe in the clause that refers to the new towns. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
§ On Question, Whether Clause 84 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Lord MISHCONIt is my sad duty at a quarter past one in the morning, to a patient, persevering, but debilitated and possibly fast-disappearing Committee, to draw attention to one of the most vital parts of the Bill. I do so protesting on behalf of the Opposition that there should be such mismanagement of Government business that a part of the Bill such as this, which gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers over land belonging to local authorities and public bodies throughout the Kingdom, should be taken at this hour, before a Committee of this size.
Let me tell your Lordships right away that I do not propose to test the opinion of a Committee which is in this state. I think it would be absolutely wrong for me to do so, because at this moment the Committee does not reflect the proper opinion of your Lordships' House. Therefore, as I said, on a matter as vital as this I think it would be quite wrong for me to take any vote at all, and I shall have to reserve the rights of the Opposition—I do not know how noble Lords on the Liberal Benches feel about this—that the Report stage. Having said that, I propose very briefly, in regard both to Clause 84 and to subsequent clauses, to make one speech in order to draw the attention of what is left of the Committee at this hour to some of the provisions which the Opposition finds very distasteful and as having no proper part in a local government 1081 Bill which is supposed, indeed, to give greater powers to local authorities and not to diminish them.
As your Lordships have heard, there is a schedule, Schedule 13, which sets out various bodies. Under Clause 82 the Secretary of State takes unto himself the power to add to those bodies or to vary the list in Schedule 13. In Clause 83 he has the power to say to what areas within local authorities this Part of the Bill shall apply. Then, in Clause 84 he sets up a register. At this stage I direct your Lordships' attention only to Clause 84(2)(c), where he has the power to set up a register of land which,
in the opinion of the Secretary of State … is not being used or not being sufficiently used for the purposes of the performance of the body's functions or of carrying on their undertaking.There is not a word as to any criteria to be used; not a word as to whether or not there is any question of an appeal by a local authority or a public body as to whether the Secretary of State is taking unto himself these arbitrary powers fairly and justly; no mention of the fact that local authorities are supposed to know best what to do with their land; no mention of the fact that this gives the Secretary of State the power to interfere with future capital projects which the local authority may have in mind, and rid them of every opportunity to carry them out.Once it is on the register, one might think that it is not so had that it is on the register and that there should be no right of appeal to be on the register. But what then does the Secretary of State take unto himself within these dictatorial powers given by this part of the Bill? In Clause 85, after dealing with public access to the information in the register, subsection (3) reads:
A copy of a register sent to a council … shall be available at the council's principal office for inspection by any member of the public at all reasonable hours".That, one would have thought, was a perfectly harmless subsection to put in. It is in fact an open invitation to all the property speculators there may be to come and have advance notice of the land that the Secretary of State has arbitrarily decided shall be land which he feels the local authority has not properly used, or is not about properly to use. So at once advance information is given about this. It would be a little naïve to pretend that 1082 some of the arrangements that people at auctions and at other places are known to make would not be made in this instance, and that people would not get together and say, "There is no point in our bidding one against the other; we had better watch for this land. If you get Parcel 1 we will get Parcel 2, and we ought to be able to get them pretty reasonably".Now we come to the whole sting of this section; and that is reached in Clause 87 where the Secretary of State can direct a body "to take steps"—and he can specify the steps—for the clause says
the disposal of the interest … in any landand he can lay down the terms and conditions on which an offer to dispose of it is to be made. Again, there is no question of appeal, no respect for the local authority, even to allowing them to decide upon their own terms and conditions upon which they will dispose of the land. It is asking a little much of security—which does not always obtain even in Cabinet circles and even, I may say frankly, in Shadow Cabinet circles. But it is a little odd and a little naïve to think that when the Secretary of State, within the building of his department, is going to lay down the terms—and I assume that means the price or the auction sale reserve, or whatever, and the date when it is all to be disposed of and the time within which it must be disposed of—all this is not going to creep out. And how dreadful to put upon a local authority which owns this land and has acquired it, presumably for some good purpose, that the Secretary of State, in his own wisdom (for, as I have said, there is no right of appeal) can decide it is not a good purpose and the authority will have to dispose of it, as have other bodies, on the terms and conditions which the Secretary of State lays down.Then, if one looks at Clause 88, there is a right to make representations to the Secretary of State as to the proposed directions and its contents. One would have thought that at long last one would have had some sort of direction to the Secretary of State within this Bill as to the matters that he must take into account—the reasonableness of the time within which the disposal is to be made and all the rest. But nothing like that is laid down. The only thing he has to deal with is set out, as your Lordships will see, within Clause 88. There, one reads: 1083
the Secretary of State may not give a direction unless he is satisfied that the interest to which the direction would relate can be disposed of in the manner in which and on the terms and conditions on which he proposes that it shall be disposed of without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertaking".It is not even "to the detriment"; it has to be "to the serious detriment". If this is passed, we are giving to the Secretary of State the power to decide whether something is to the "serious detriment" of a local authority or other public body. What an insult to the members of the local authority that it is the Secretary of State who shall be the only person to decide what is to their "serious detriment"—they who are the elected representatives within that area!I said at the beginning that I entered a protest on behalf of my noble friends at the fact that this very important, innovative clause of the Bill is being taken at this hour. I have said that I have no intention of trying to seek the opinion of such a diminished Committee. Having made the observations that I have made, I will listen with great respect to what is said from the Front Bench opposite; but I will reserve all the rights of the Opposition to deal with this matter at a proper hour and in a proper way hereafter.
§ 1.25 a.m.
§ Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTONThe noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, expresses my own views about discussing clauses of this importance at this time of night. The fault lies with the managers of the Government's programme in setting aside what is a comparatively short time for an enormously compendious bill which some people say is 10, 12 or 5 Bills. It is certainly a large number of Bills all rolled into one. The Committee is being asked to make very important decisions which will have lasting significance at an hour in the night when, even with the greatest goodwill, we must be finding our judgment possibly a little warped.
As someone engaged in local government, I personally find Clause 87 particularly reprehensible. It takes an enormous amount of freedom out of local government. I should have thought that local authorities are, on the whole, the best people to know to what uses the land they own is to be put. I was made aware of 1084 the dangers we were facing when the Secretary of State visited Merseyside just after the general election and said: "The first thing I want to see from you on Merseyside is a register of the land that is in the possession of the local authority or other statutory undertakers. I feel that the great number of acres of land which remain undeveloped are a matter about which something should be done".
It is perfectly true that in Merseyside, and in other areas, there are large parts of the central area of the city which appear an eyesore and are undeveloped. They appear an eyesore for reasons which very often are to do with the failure to act by central Government. Large areas have been set aside for an inner ring road, which is highly controversial. Large areas have been set aside for the continuation of a motorway, which very few people seem to want. Often the reason that areas appear to be neglected or unused by the local authority is because of the failure to make decisions by departments of the Government, such as the Ministry of Transport.
I am sure that there are faults at local government level. I am sure that local government retains land that it does not need because it has not made up its mind what to do with it. A large part of the blame rests with central Government. At the end of the day, decisions about the use of land in a local authority area are best made by the local authority in consultation with and knowledge of the views of local citizens rather than by a remote central Government department legislating for them.
I find it difficult to discuss the important fundamental changes in the status of local government and its ownership of land at nearly half past one in the morning. I intend for my part to do the best I can by shutting up at this point.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKAt half past one in the morning I have only a few sentences to add. I feel very sad. Some of us here have tried diligently from all sides of the Committee to make something of this matter in defence of the heart of democracy. Here, sadly at this time of night, we are pushed into making decisions. We are all getting a little irritable and we are not as keen and bright as we usually are. It is tragic. This is not a smiling matter. The destiny of local government 1085 and the destiny of local people, local systems of government (which are older than central Government) are in danger as they have not been since probably before the time of Oliver Cromwell. It is not a laughing matter.
Looking at Clause 88, there is a statutory instrument that can be brought into use. I know an area in Stoke-on-Trent where hundreds of thousands of houses have been knocked down but the land has been left derelict because there are no funds and no complete plan available. We are now opening up for "cowboys" and all types of speculators to jump in and we will have the shoddy kind of buildings that have ruined parts of Britain before.
It is no good running into the lobbies; we can be overwhelmed in the vote. Many noble Lords opposite are loyally supporting the Government while in their hearts they know there are lots of problems arising from this Bill. It should not have only a week of discussion but a couple of months of discussion in depth.
§ The Earl of AVONIn spite of the late hour, I presume that your Lordships would like me to reply in some way to your comments. I should like not to take up too much time in talking about dictatorial powers, because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken of them in regard to quite a number of other parts and has been answered by my noble friend. But I would take issue a little on the register itself. I was under the impression that land registers featured in the Labour Party's manifesto. I am therefore rather surprised that there is not more wide-ranging support for land registers.
Your Lordships may take issue on the fact that we have given a little too many teeth to these land registers, in which case I shall take the point. But I do believe, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, that we need something to stimulate people into using their unused land which is lying idle. This, I believe, is why land registers were thought about in the first place. I am sorry that noble Lords are seeking to delete the register provisions from this Bill, as I believe it should be the view of the House that something positive needs to be done about the problems of unused and under-used land, particularly in urban areas—
§ Lord MISHCONI hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, who in the short time he has been addressing this Committee has shown so much courtesy. But I hope I made it perfectly clear in my remarks that I was not objecting to a register as such. I drew special attention to the one sub-paragraph which, in my view, gives powers far beyond what should be given to central Government. That is Clause 84(2)(c), which reads:
that in the opinion of the Secretary of State the land is not being used or not being sufficiently used for the purposes of the performance of the body's functions or of carrying on their undertaking".It was not the register that I objected to.
§ The Earl of AVONI come back again to the dictatorial point. But, equally, noble Lords spoke of innovative proposals, which I took to mean the register of land. However, it may be that when I read the report tomorrow I shall see that noble Lords did not mean that. Anyway, something has to be done to solve the problem and in making known the existence of such land through registers we feel that we are taking a positive step forward. The processes leading to registration should create a situation in which the holding bodies become more aware of the potential of their land. There is nothing dictatorial—just awareness.
At first sight, the register provisions may appear to rely unduly on subjective tests. I acknowledge that there is no hard definition of "unused" land. There is no watertight way of doing this. It is something which has to be left to the judgment of the Secretary of State, in the light of all the relevant facts. It also has the advantage of allowing us to proceed somewhat experimentally and to learn as we go. I am sure that this is the best way.
It is important to make clear that registers are not "black books". There may well be very good reasons why land is held unused or in token use only. This can simply be noted in a register. Since we shall be starting the registers by calling for information from owning bodies, there is ready-made opportunity for them to comment or explain why they feel that a particular site should not be registered. But even if the Secretary of State does register, there is still no harm 1087 done. The power of direction has safeguards attached to it.
It is hoped that the process of registration will activate unused land. It is to everyone's advantage that it does. There is no need to clog the process with elaborate procedures. It is far better that they are kept lightweight and flexible. It has been suggested that the power of direction is an interference with the affairs of local authorities and other public bodies. This argument needs to be seen in the context of the Government's overriding policy objective of activating this unused public land. The point here is whether or not Part X of the Bill should contain a power to enable the Secretary of State to make it work by directing land release, if the information-collecting processes of registration are not a sufficient stimulus in themselves; that is, if registers have not stimulated an authority, there is now a power with the Secretary of State. It is not so frightening. As I have said, the policy objective of activating land is overriding. The problem of unused public land is a visible one, as Lord Davies has said, and must be solved. I could speak for much longer, but in the spirit of this at the moment I think I will end there.
§ Lord UNDERHILLThe noble Earl referred to the Labour Party and registers of land. But that is a different register of land from that referred to in this Bill. This is not all land. This is only land held by local authorities and public bodies, and it would be wrong to assume that all unused and under-used land is in the hands of public bodies and local authorities. One has only to travel around the country to see derelict sites attached to commercial undertakings, many with "For Sale" notices up due to the present circumstances. If we are going to have a register of land available for developers, which is what Clause 85 says, then it ought to be a register of all land and not only part of the land.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon emphasised the point that there is no appeal. Noble Lords who are well versed in local government know the very detailed machinery which a local authority must go through at present if it wishes compulsorily to purchase land. It may be the same sort of land that now is going to be subjected 1088 to a direction by the Secretary of State without any procedure, without any appeal of any kind whatsoever. I hope that point will be considered by the Government.
I want to make two other very brief points. There is a possibility, because of the register being compiled in this way, of land being sold at a deflated price, which means that instead of accruing the proper value to the community the local authorities and public bodies will lose the value which they might have had if the matter was handled in a different way. What safeguard is there that a developer who purchases land in this way will use it immediately? He may decide to sit on it and wait, because he can get it at a cheap price now, or he may decide to sit on it and sell it at a later time. There is not a single safeguard of that description in this Bill.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKThere is another vital point. Clause 85(4) says:
If any member of the public requires a council to supply him with a copy of any information contained in such a copy of a register, the council shall supply him with a copy of that information on payment of such reasonable charge for making it as the council may determine".This is an opening for groups of people just to deal with public land, not derelict land that businesses have given up. We are in the Community of Europe. If a company is formed in Brussels to invest in public land in Britain we have no possibility of stopping a group of Frenchmen, Germans or others under this clause, because we are part of the European Community. In the same way, they can make contracts to supply goods to the local authorities today. All of this should have been thought about in depth, but we cannot do it now.
§ Lord MISHCONAs I said, I have no intention at this hour—I know the Committee will not think me discourteous in saying this; I have already made my protest—of answering the Government's case or dealing with it. I have tried to analyse the sections of this part which the Opposition finds offensive. As I said, I have no intention of taking from a Committee which is not capable of expressing it the opinion of this House at this hour, because of its numbers and because of the lateness, on a matter of such vital importance.
§ Clause 84 agreed to.
§ Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
§ Clause 87 [Disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State]:
§ 1.39 a.m.
§ Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 220:
§
Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Where a direction given under this section specifies such terms and conditions as are referred to in subsection (2) above, the body to whom the direction is given may appeal to the Lands Tribunal and the Tribunal may, in determining the appeal, revoke or vary any of those conditions.")
§ The noble Viscount said: I will be very brief. I agree entirely with all that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the iniquity of Clause 87, and I would hope that at a later stage we may be able to get rid of it. But, in case we are unable to do that, we should try to meet the point that has been made both by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there is no provision for appeal of any kind against the decision of the Secretary of State as to the terms on which land is to be disposed of. The only provision—I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it—is in Clause 88(2), where a body which receives a notice under subsection (1) may make representations to the Secretary of State, the very person who has laid down the direction. It seems to me a most extraordinary arrangement.
§ I am sorry that neither of the two noble Lords who throughout the proceedings until now have been so eloquently expressing the views of the local authority associations is here. I should have thought that this was a matter upon which the local authority associations would have the very strongest views. I have suggested in this amendment, although I am not at all competent, really, to make a suggestion, that perhaps they should have an appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
§ The noble Lord on the Front Bench said some while ago that the Lands Tribunal has nothing to do with planning but has to do with valuation. It might be that if an appeal were developed to the Lands Tribunal a local authority which had been required to sell land on certain 1090 terms and conditions could at least have it checked by the Lands Tribunal as to whether a reasonable price and reasonable conditions were attached to the disposal of the land. I beg to move.
§ 1.42 a.m.
§ The Earl of AVONI am afraid there are three reasons why I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. First, as a matter of Government policy, the intention is that the territorial Secretary of State should consider, against the wider policy objective of activating unused public land, the case for and against directing a disposal. It would be unacceptable to have appeals on a measure of policy beyond the Secretary of State.
Secondly, safeguards are provided for owning bodies, as the noble Viscount mentioned, within the framework of Government, in that the power of direction can only be exercised where the "appropriate Minister" with day to day responsibility for the body concerned is satisfied that the land can be disposed of, in the manner and on the terms and conditions specified, without serious detriment to the performance of functions or the undertaking. A further formal appeal beyond that in Clause 88, involving appeals against the terms and conditions of a direction, would have little relevance. The relevant considerations are those referred to in Clause 88—whether the land can be disposed of on the terms specified without serious detriment. This is something that the appropriate Minister is best placed to consider. Leaving aside the question of principle, to introduce other considerations and other areas of responsibility would make the whole procedure cumbersome and bureaucratic; there would be duplication and delay.
Thirdly, in this context the role proposed would be inappropriate to the tribunal as I think the noble Viscount himself mentioned. The application of policy to certain circumstances is an area better reserved to Ministers answerable in Parliament.
I have two further comments which may in some way answer some of the remarks made after I sat down on the previous clause. I would add that Ministers already have wide-ranging powers and duties in respect of those 1091 public bodies for which they are responsible and that the exercise of these powers may include the issuing of directions with consequences for the present and future operational performance of those bodies.
I would also make clear that it is the intention that market value considerations should normally apply to disposals involving registered land. To this end the manner and terms of a directed disposal will usually be a matter for sound professional advice. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to accept this explanation and withdraw his amendment.
§ Viscount SIMONI accept that the Government's policy is to give the Secretary of State the right and, indeed, the responsibility to decide that this or that piece of land ought to be disposed of and that it would be inappropriate to ask the Lands Tribunal to be a court of appeal, so to speak, on that; but surely, on the terms and conditions, it would be reasonable to have some court of appeal. Right at the end of his remarks the noble Earl said that market values would usually rate. One difficulty about that is that it is extremely difficult to establish a market value for large pieces of land where, in all probability, there is only one probable purchaser.
I should have thought that there should be an appeal or a reference, if the noble Earl prefers that, to some independent body—I am rather ignorant about these things, it might be the district valuer—rather than just to have the Secretary of State saying, "these are the terms on which you are to dispose of this land". The noble Earl said that he understood that it would normally be the intention to dispose at market price, but I think that it is very difficult to establish objectively the market price for a large piece of vacant land. I hope that that matter might be considered further by the noble Earl. In the meantime, I shall withdraw the amendment if the Committee will allow me.
§ Lord MISHCONI do not want to be at all unfair to the noble Earl. If he tells me that he would prefer to answer me hereafter on this matter, either in writing or when we reach another stage, I shall understand it completely. I do 1092 want, however, to give the Committee some understanding of the precise nature of the power given to the Secretary of State, without any tribunal of appeal, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The question that I ask is this: could he possibly differentiate before the Committee between the following—"detriment", "substantial detriment" and "serious detriment"? "Serious detriment" are the words used in the Bill. Can he tell the Committee how the Secretary of State would distinguish between detriment, substantial detriment and serious detriment?
§ The Earl of AVONI thank the noble Lord for giving me a little time on this. As we are dashing about, as it were, on Part X, I should prefer to answer it when we take it more specifically.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord RENTON moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 76, line 16, leave out ("It is hereby declared that").
§ The noble Lord said: These words are quite unnecessary. An Act of Parliament is for making laws, not for making declarations. These words are otiose. I beg to move.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKI support that. I thought that I was reading Torquemada, because that is the kind of mediaeval language that used to be used. It is a revelation of the subconscious power that the Government are taking into their hands. We make laws; we do not declare them. I do not know whether the noble Lord is experienced in law. I am a layman in law, but I do understand something of semantics. That is why I support the amendment.
§ The Earl of AVONPerhaps I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on this. The Government have listened carefully to the noble Lord and are willing to accept this amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
§ Clause 90 [Repeal]:
1093§ 1.49 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord STEWART of FULHAMMy Lords, it is yet another deplorable example of the Government's mismanagement, not only of this monster of a Bill but of their whole programme, that we have to consider at this hour of the night one of the major problems that has faced this country for a good many years and which will face it for some years to come. Consequently, like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I shall not attempt to test the opinion of the Committee at this hour, nor indeed to deploy in full the argument about it. I hope we may be able to return to that at a later stage. For the present, I shall say only that the repeal of the Community Land Act would mean losing an opportunity for solving a long-standing problem that may be briefly described as follows: how to prevent gross profiteering in land values without at the same time drying up the supply of land coming forward for development.
The country has shown that it was beginning to find the right answers to that problem in the procedures for the new towns, in the work of the local authority in Wales. If the Government had come forward and said: "There are defects in the working of the community land scheme in England and we propose this, that and the other improvement," we should have been glad to co-operate with them to that end, but to destroy the Act altogether is to throw away any opportunity of completing the task that the nation had already promisingly begun; and it is particularly evil to do that at the present time, when the air is full of exhortations to people who work for their living not to be unreasonable in the requests that they make for salaries and wages. At such a time it is particularly important that there should not be flagrant examples of people getting large sums of money for doing nothing at all. That is in effect what the Government are doing by repealing the Community Land Act at this stage. It is allowing the process of getting something for nothing to go on unchecked. This is not the time or place to test the opinion of the Committee, but I hope we shall be able to consider this matter as fully as it deserves at a later stage.
§ Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERNThe Government view on this matter is that to repeal the Community Land Act is, so far as we are concerned, to get rid of a good deal of unnecessary bureaucracy. With regard to getting for the nation the development value of land, the structure of the Community Land Act is quite unnecessary for that purpose. The development land tax obtains that for the nation.
§ Lord STEWART of FULHAMBut we have already been told in a sort of aside by one member of the Government Front Bench this evening that the development land tax is being reconsidered.
§ Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERNI am sure noble Lords would think it right that every tax should often be reconsidered, but the point I am making is that obtaining the development value for the nation is done by the development land tax and, provided it is set at a realistic level, then the initiative of those who hold the land will ensure that a reasonable supply of land comes forward. There are ancillary provisions in the Community Land Act which are of some utility in helping local authorities to buy land where circumstances so require and these we are retaining, but the major structure of the Act, its bureaucratic need for intimation of every planning application to the local authority and saying what they are going to do about these, as well as the requirement which may exist upon owners to notify the council whenever they are thinking of selling their property, does not seem to be of any utility whatsoever. It is also of some interest that a very considerable amount of the money which has been spent in relation to this Act has been spent in administration. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to agreeing that Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 90 agreed to.
§ Schedule 14 [Community Land Act]:
§ 1.54 a.m.
§
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 221A:
Page 165, line 31, leave out ("re-enacts or supersedes") and insert ("includes provisions re-enacting or superseding").
§ The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady White, and by leave of the Committee I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B at the same time. One small correction is needed in Amendment No. 223B, namely in paragraph (bb) (ii) the second "authority" should not have a capital "A", because with a capital "A" it would mean the Land Authority for Wales.
§ Section 16 of the Water Act 1973 gives persons who propose to erect buildings on the land and local authorities power to requisition from the water authority public sewers for domestic purposes for land which they are developing. The Land Authority for Wales is not able to exercise these powers because it is not permitted to develop land to the extent of erecting buildings; nor is it within the definition of "local authority" in the Act. The Land Authority for Wales is placed in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis private developers and local authority developers. Considerable difficulties can arise in various ways. For example, a site served by a sewer is always a more attractive proposition to a developer, but to a small builder it can often be an essential prerequisite because of the costs involved having regard to the size of the development and the timescale.
§ A further example is where the Land Authority for Wales acquires a site and seeks to dispose of it in parcels suitable for the requirements of small builders; the requisitioning power is essential because it is highly unlikely that an individual builder would be financially able or prepared to requisition a sewer for the whole site, and there are often considerable legal and financial difficulties in attempting to requisition a sewer for the site on a joint basis.
§ Another difficulty is that the Land Authority for Wales on occasion will seek to provide serviced sites—that is, sites provided with roads and sewers—with a view to then offering such serviced sites to developers, often in small parcels but not always so. Where it is the intention so to do, then unless such sites adjoin a public sewer the lack of requisitioning powers precludes such form of development.
§ This amendment places the Land Authority for Wales in the same position as local authorities. It is a reasonable 1096 proposition and I would hope that the Government would be prepared to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that it is only reasonable that in the matter of making land available for development the Land Authority should have powers similar to those of local authorities, and it is acknowledged that local authorities have the necessary power to requisition sewers, which is the general effect of this group of amendments. Indeed, from what the noble Lord has explained to the Committee, if it were not for this group of amendments there is no question but that the Land Authority would be bringing land forward which would be of interest almost solely to the large developers, and the danger would be that the Land Authority would find themselves concentrating their efforts on the provision of land for the larger builders who can make their own arrangements for servicing sites. This is something we would not wish to be writing into legislation. The Land Authority will of course be serving both large and small developers. For those reasons, very clearly explained by the noble Lord, the Government are very ready to accept this group of amendments.
§ Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOSThis will be much appreciated in Wales and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
§
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 168, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Any notice served under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 7 before the passing of this Act shall cease to be a local land charge on the passing of this Act; and where any such notice has been registered as a local land charge the registration shall, without prejudice to any rules made under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, be cancelled accordingly.").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply a tidying up provision designed to ensure that notices served by local authorities under the Community Land Act saying whether they intend, or do not intend, to acquire land shall no longer be a local land charge and that all references 1097 to them shall be deleted from the local land charge registers.
§ Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 91 agreed to.
§ Schedule 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 92 [The Authority's functions]:
§ 2 a.m.
§
Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 79, line 9, after ("forestry") insert ("of business and industry").
§ The noble Lord said: In subsection (2) (d) of Clause 92, the Land Authority for Wales is asked to consider before it acquires land the needs of those engaged in building, agriculture and forestry and of the community in general. I do not think that it is reasonable in the ordinary usage of phraseology in this country to assume that trade and industry is covered by the phrase, "community in general". As trade and industry is directly and specifically affected by development of land, whether in the provision of the raw materials or in the use of the development when complete, I suggest that it should be specifically mentioned in order to make the point clear. I beg to move.
§ Lord BELSTEADThere is no intention on the part of the Government that the Land Authority should neglect the needs of business and industry and so as regards that matter I agree with my noble friend. Where I must confess that I have to disagree with my noble friend is in that we believe that subsection (2)(d) of the clause covers this consideration when it requires the authority to take account of the needs of the community in general.
I shall explain a little further why I place my faith in those words. We would not want to appear to be instructing the Land Authority to place the same emphasis on the provision of land for industry and commerce as it will be expected to do where land for house building is concerned. There is a considerable shortage of housing in various parts of Wales and we intend that the authority should continue to concentrate the main weight of its activity on the residential front. Do not let us forget that we are continuing in essence, but 1098 with different powers, the work of the Land Authority which has been done for the last four years or so under the chairmanship of Lady White.
What I have said does not imply the exclusion of the work of the Land Authority from the provision of land for commerce and industry; it has already provided very useful sites for those purposes and will continue to do so. But my noble friend will recall that, in Wales, there is another Government Agency with land provision powers—the Welsh Development Agency—whose main duty is the encouragement of industrial development and which has the powers and the money to set up advance factories for incoming industrialists. It does not seem that it would be desirable for the Land Authority to be expected to compete in the WDA's own particular field, especially if the result were a lessening of the Land Authority's activities in the residential sphere.
It is against that background that specific reference has been made in subsection (2)(d) to the needs of those engaged in building. Perhaps I should add before I finish that it is true that we mention specifically agriculture and forestry in this subsection. But in doing that the Bill is drawing attention to the importance of protecting these activities wherever reasonably possible. In Wales, a high proportion of land is devoted to agriculture and forestry and many people, both inside and outside the Principality, depend upon the well-being of these activities in a variety of ways. We are, therefore, impressing upon the authority the need to avoid encroachment upon this type of land use wherever possible, and that is why forestry and agriculture are specifically mentioned.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that to make this amendment would be to place an undue emphasis on one element in the Land Authority's activities, apart from the promotion of housing. The authority has not overlooked in the past the area of activity to which my noble friend is drawing attention and, in the extremely unlikely event of its doing so in the future, the Secretary of State for Wales will have the power under Clause 91(4) to direct it on the matter. With that explanation, I hope that perhaps my noble friend will feel that it is possible to reconsider the amendment.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEWith the greatest possible respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I think that there were certain parts of what he had to say which were contradictory. But I shall have to take great care to read what he said and consider whether any further amendment is necessary at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 79, line 21, after ("drains") insert ("sewers").
§ Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 93 agreed to.
§
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS moved Amendment No. 223B:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
§ ("Requisitioning of sewers.
§ . In section 16 of the Water Act 1973 (water authority's duty to provide sewer)—
- (a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) there shall be added" or (bb) if—
- (i) the Land Authority for Wales are the owners of the premises at the relevant time; and
- (ii) the Land Authority require the Authority to provide a public sewer for the drainage of new buildings proposed to be erected on the premises by any person; and
- (iii) the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below (as modified by subsection (3A) below) are satisfied; or";
- (b) in subsection (3), after the words "paragraph (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or, subject to subsection (3A) below, paragraph (bb)":
- (c) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—
- "(3A) Where the Land Authority for Wales are the owners of the premises at the relevant time, subsection (3)(a) above shall have effect as if the words "or by any other person" were inserted after the word "owners", in the second place where it occurs."; and
- (d) at the end of subsection (11) there shall be added "and "relevant time" in relation to land owned by the Land Authority for Wales, means the time when the Land Authority require the
1100 water authority to provide a public sewer as mentioned in subsection (1)(bb) above.".")
§ Schedule 17 agreed to.
§ Clause 94 agreed to.
§ Schedule 18 agreed to.
§ Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
§ Schedule 19 agreed to.
§ Clauses 99 to 102 agreed to.
§ 2.10 a.m.
§
Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 224:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause:
§ ("Compensation in respect of certain orders
§ .—(1) When by virtue of any scheme or order made under the Highways Act 1980 any section of a route authorised by a previous order or scheme ("the original authorisation") is deleted therefrom any person interested in any land liable to be acquired for that section of that route or in close proximity thereto whose interest has not been acquired but the value of whose interest has depreciated by reason of the original authorisation shall be paid compensation for that depreciation by the authority authorised to acquire the land under the original authorisation.
§ (2) Compensation payable under this section shall be determined, in the case of dispute, under and in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961, if the land to which it relates is in England or Wales, and under and in accordance with the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, if the land to which it relates is in Scotland as if other land of the person referred to in subsection (1) above had been taken by the authority referred to in that subsection and compensation was payable for injurious affection to the land in respect of which the claim relates.
§ (3) No claims under this section shall be made otherwise than in the claim period, that is to say, the period of two years beginning on the day on which the order or scheme deleting from the original authorisation the section of the route to which the claim relates is made.
§ (4) The compensations payable on any claim shall be assessed by reference to prices current on the first day of the claim period.
§ (5) In assessing the extent of depreciation account shall be taken of the cost of maintenance and improvements which may reasonably have been deferred because of the original authorisation and any other additional expenditure reasonably attributable to the original authorisation").
§ The noble Lord said: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the 1101 Committee if we were to take Amendment No. 226 with Amendment No. 224, as these are both concerned with the consequences of the deletion from a scheme of any section of the route that was authorised by a previous order or scheme, the first of the amendments being concerned with compensation to persons with property that has been affected by the scheme, and the second with the disposal of land held by the highway authorities for the purposes of that scheme.
§ The amendments are primarily concerned with the problem of blight which affects the owners of properties which are in the neighbourhood of a proposed motorway or trunk road scheme. Some noble Lords may recall that on a previous occasion I suggested in the Construction of Roads (Time Limit) Bill that if a scheme was not proceeded with before a certain time had elapsed after the Secretary of State had made an order, then it would automatically fall. That was not acceptable to your Lordships. The House was convinced by the arguments pronounced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on that occasion on behalf of the Government, that if the power to construct a motorway or a trunk road were to be withdrawn after five years because the works had not yet been started, the need for the project as shown by the growth of traffic might nevertheless still be there, and so the threat to the property owners concerned would not have been lifted. That was the argument that she put forward and which the House accepted.
§ Therefore, what I am now doing is to approach the problem from another angle. I am suggesting that if in the end a scheme is abandoned, then the persons whose property has been injuriously affected, perhaps over a period of a great many years, should be entitled to reasonable compensation. If I may, I shall—as I did on the occasion of the Construction of Roads (Time Limit) Bill—use the example of the M.23 extension to illustrate the point. The line of the M.23 between Hooley and Mitcham is, if I may say so, a glaring example of the injustice which may result from motorway schemes, and of course there is no way of making restitution for the grave disadvantage suffered by residents in the immediate neighbourhood of the line of this motorway and of others similar to 1102 it over a very long period of time, by reason of the fact that they could not either sell their homes at all or, if they did, it was at a viciously depressed price compared with similar properties which were not affected by the scheme. In all likelihood there will have been thrown up as a result of the cuts in the trunk road programme—which of course in other respect I very much welcome—similar cases elsewhere. They may also have highlighted the absence of any satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of land and dwellings which are no longer required as a result of the schemes being abandoned.
§
Mr. Kenneth Clarke, one of the Junior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, said in a Written Parliamentary Answer on 26th June:
There is no legal basis for payment of compensation in retrospect for any adverse effects during the past period of uncertainty.
That relates to persons whose homes are in the vicinity of a trunk road or motorway and who have been in the position I have described of not being able to sell the property, or having to sell it at a very depressed price.
§ Do not ordinary considerations of fairness indicate that a person who has been locked into a property because its value has been gravely reduced by ministerial action should be able to look to that Minister for some form of redress, or to some sort of public authority for compensation for the financial loss he has suffered over a great many years? In the case of the M.23 the line was designated a long time before the order was made on, I think, 1956. The people who were living along this route had their houses injuriously affected going back to a period before the war. It is rather like the South Orbital Road in my former constituency. That was a line marked on the map by the authorities in pre-war days and sterilised from building throughout the period up until the middle 1960s, so that people whose houses were on either side of this open space were never sure that at some time in the future a dual carriage road might not suddenly appear on their doorsteps. That was the position of the people living in the neighbourhood of the M.23.
§ When the representatives of the M.23 action group—and particularly Mrs. Lorraine, to whom I must pay tribute as I 1103 did on the previous occasion for the remarkable struggle she has kept up over the years on behalf of the residents in the area—saw Mr. Clarke, the Minister, in December last, he turned down the idea of including a power in this Bill on the grounds that it was already large enough. That sounds funny now when we see the number of enormous amendments that have already been accepted to this Bill, and surely it is an unacceptable argument when there is a question of principle at stake. If the Minister had only this objection to the proposal put forward by the M.23 action group, then I do not think that he ought to have accepted the very substantial amendments we have made, and it showed that he at that time at any rate was unable to think of any other objections of substance to the very reasonable proposal that Mrs. Lorraine put forward.
§ I am not going to pretend that the formula which has been devised in this particular amendment is perfect. The question of compensation is a fearsomely complex subject and the tribunals might not be the ideal authority to determine contested cases even if the wording had been perfect in the first place. All I would hope to achieve at this stage is some kind of recognition by the Government that payment is due to those people who have had to suffer a great many years of economic and psychological hardship for the supposed benefit of the vanishing motorists of the future.
§ Amendment No. 226 makes provision for the disposal of land which is no longer required for the trunk road or motorway scheme such as the one about which we are talking, and I might add that the revocation order for this stretch of the M.23 makes no reference at all to this matter. What is proposed here is that the highway authority shall be obliged to dispose of the land which has been acquired for the scheme and that it shall revert to the previous use without the need for any further planning permission to be obtained. Where the highway authority has built houses on the land and has leased or let them, as has happened in the case of the M.23—I am sure it would be the same with other examples—the second new clause obliges the authority to offer the dwelling to the tenant or lessee or, if he does not want to buy it, to the person willing to 1104 continue letting the property. The object is to see that residential property continues to remain as such and is not redeveloped, if that can be avoided. Ordinarily, and bearing in mind the discussion we had on the previous clause, I would not have sought to oblige the highway authority to dispose of land in their ownership, but if that authority were to retain the land, there would be a continuing threat hanging over the heads of the residents in the neighbourhood that at any time in the future the scheme could be resuscitated if any Government so wished. I beg to move.
§ Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERNI have listened closely to the noble Lord's explanation of the two amendments and we are well aware of his keen interest in the subject. I regret that, although I understand the point of view he has put forward, I am not able to support his new clause, not for the reason he referred to but for other reasons. The concept underlying the first new clause is that property which was under threat of acquisition for, or stood near to, the designated route of a proposed road will have depreciated in value for that reason, and that although a firm decision has been taken not to build the road, owners should still be compensated for "historic" depreciation. I find that a somewhat difficult concept to reconcile with the reasonably rigorous logic on which the compensation code is based. The new clause would give the owner whose property is adversely affected by an order for a highway scheme a statutory entitlement to compensation, but only if the order which has caused the depreciation is cancelled. That does not seem to me a sound basis on which to found a new entitlement to compensation, especially one which included rather special heads of compensation under which those eligible could well be more favourably treated than other owners who may at some stage actually be touched by a road scheme and have suffered actual loss.
One could test the new clause by applying it to somebody, to take an extreme case, who had bought their house immediately before the claim day. It would be very odd indeed if people who had come in immediately before the claim day should be entitled to claim, yet if one looks at the clause, it relies entirely on 1105 property values at the date on which the order deleting the road is made, so I find it hard to see how this could work as a possible claim at all in principle. There are also matters of detail, but perhaps I need not trouble the Committee with those at this stage. That is the point of principle which I find very difficult about the noble Lord's proposal.
Regarding the second new clause, once the scheme has been departed from and an order has been made to cancel the scheme, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport as highway authority for trunk roads has no power to retain land which is no longer needed, and once the land is known to be surplus, steps are taken by the department to dispose of it. In the case of local highway schemes—I appreciate that the example is a trunk road scheme and that that is the principal matter referred to by the noble Lord, but perhaps I can say this to complete the position—it is for the local authority to decide whether to dispose of property which is surplus to highway requirements or to appropriate it for some other use. If it does not have some other use for the property, it would be obliged to dispose of it.
So we do not see any special need for a compulsitor, as it were, being put on the road authority to dispose of the houses which have been bought in contemplation of doing the road. We think that the forces that will tend towards that situation are in any case sufficient to achieve that purpose.
So far as the planning proposals of the second clause are concerned, our attitude is that generally speaking there will not have been a planning permission for a change of use during the time that the noble Lord has referred to; but if the planning position was such that a change of use was justified, it is not easy to see why the mere cancellation of the road necessarily would reverse that and make the former use appropriate.
I should perhaps also mention that procedures for the sale of surplus land held by Government departments is under review, and a consultation document on this issue was put out on 3rd October. It is also suggested that other public authorities with land to dispose of might well follow these proposals. I am sorry 1106 that I cannot feel able to recommend either of these two new clauses to your Lordships.
§ Lord AVEBURYI am not sure whether the Minister was suggesting that simply because the order had been revoked, the owners, who might have suffered interim loss during the period when the scheme was in force, had now had their property restored to its original value. If that is what he was seeking to imply, then it certainly is not correct, because if one looks at properties that are in the immediate neighbourhood of the M.23, one sees that there is no doubt at all that they are valued at considerably lower prices than are equivalent houses some distance away. The reason for this is that there has been neglect by property owners of premises which they thought were under the threat of being demolished, or which came very near to the line of the motorway. They did not see any purpose in spending money on properties which in any case had depreciated in value. So the character of the neighbourhood has declined very sharply over the very many years that this scheme has been hanging over the head of the locality.
It is that reduction in the value that I hoped the Minister would have agreed in principle justified some compensation, although I entirely take his point that if someone moved in the day before the revocation order came into effect, it would be wrong that he should suddenly be able to claim compensation by virtue of the new clause that has been tabled. I am perfectly happy to take back the new clause and have another look at it, with a view to seeing whether this particular defect can be rectified.
On the second new clause, the matter is immensely complicated, as I said, and I should like to see what exactly is the import of the Minister's reply before I decide whether to reintroduce this proposal at the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 224A, 224B and 224C not moved.]
§ Clause 103 agreed to.
1107§ Clause 104 [Assessment of development land]:
§ 2.24 a.m.
§
Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 87, line 38, at end insert ("and which is in conformity with the structure plan of the county planning authority and the local plan of the district planning authority").
§ The noble Lord said: This clause provides that the Secretary of State may direct a local authority to make an assessment of land which is available and suitable for development for residential purposes. I cannot fully comprehend the purpose of this assessment, but I should have thought that local authorities would already have had this information. However, if it helps in any way, naturally I shall not resist the clause. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the Secretary of State will discriminate as to which local authorities will have this direction, and that a local authority must comply with any directions that the Secretary of State may give in connection with this assessment. Therefore, I consider it necessary to have safeguards against any possibility of arbitrary action.
§ During the Second Reading debate I expressed concern on this matter, and other noble Lords did likewise, and said that it must be ensured that this clause would not lead to any encroachment on Green Belt land. Following the Second Reading debate the Minister kindly wrote to me on various matters, including the comments I had made on this particular question, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his usual courtesy in sending that letter. Lord Bellwin stated that the provisions in this clause were reserve powers. I am always a little concerned about reserve powers unless there are qualifications attached to them.
§
The noble Lord also kindly sent me a copy of the DOE circular of the 15th April 1980 on this matter, entitled Land for Private Housebuilding. I must ask noble Lords if I may read a section of this circular, because I think it is rather important. Paragraph 9 reads:
If an assessment reveals that a five-year supply of land in line with structure and local plan policies is not available, the authorities concerned should take immediate steps consistent with those policies to make up the deficiency. These might include inviting and expediting
1108
planning applications, seeking to overcome infrastructure problems quickly"—
I do not quite know what that means—
or being prepared to acquire compulsorily land needed for development which an owner is unwilling to sell".
Then it goes on:
In determining planning appeals for residential development the Secretary of State will take into account whether in the context of the advice in this circular sufficient housebuilding land has been identified as available for development in the area of the district".
§ This may seem all right on the surface, but I am a little concerned about the provisions in that paragraph and in the Bill because of statements which have been made that there could be some relaxation on the part of the Secretary of State regarding Green Belt land; and this amendment seeks to provide that the land to be included in this assessment must be in conformity with the county structure plan and the local plan. As the noble Lord the Minister assured me in his letter that this clause will not lead to the erosion of the Green Belt, I am sure he will welcome this amendment, which strengthens that position and makes it absolutely clear. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of AVONAs I think the noble Lord is aware, it is no part of the Government's policy to undermine the structure and local plan system through which a local community determines where development shall take place in its own area. The purpose of Clause 104 is simply to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to direct a local authority to carry out a site-by-site assessment of land for residential development in its area in collaboration with local builders. Local authorities were requested to carry out such assessments in the department's circular Land for Private Housebuilding, issued last April, and I am very pleased to tell your Lordships that assessments are already under way in 40 out of the 45 counties in England. It is unlikely, therefore, that my right honourable friend will ever need to use this power, and he certainly hopes not.
Land assessments are essentially fact-finding. A major objective is to ascertain whether land is actually available for housing in physical, ownership and commercial, as well as planning, terms to meet the scale of housing provision 1109 envisaged in structure and local plans. If it is not, then some action will be needed. But the assessment process itself is purely neutral in policy terms. Of course, the local authorities will have full regard to their development plans in making these assessments. The clause specifically refers to land which is in their opinion suitable for residential development. But it would be unwise to limit statutorily the local authority and the builders to examining only those sites actually identified in structure or local plans. To begin with, structure plans do not normally identify specific sites. Although local plans are much more specific, they may at any time be overdue for review.
Planning is necessarily a continuing process. There is also the point that some land is brought forward from time to time through the appeals system as departures from existing plans. It would be unrealistic, therefore, to omit from the scope of an assessment suitable sites which, for one reason or another, have not been identified in a development plan. The assessment would produce a distorted picture of the land supply situation in the area and defeat the purpose of the exercise.
I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to preserve the integrity of the planning system. But I can assure them that their amendment is unnecessary. It does not, as drafted, have quite the effect they intended and it could, as I have explained, prove unnecessarily restrictive in certain circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
§ Lord UNDERHILLIn view of the statement by the noble Earl, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment; but, having said that, we shall watch the position carefully. There have been published statements by the Secretary of State which seem to suggest that he might be prepared to see encroachment on certain parts of the Green Belt. That will have to be watched with care.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 104 agreed to.
1110§ Clause 105 [Extension of powers to make grants for reclamation of land]:
§ 2.32 p.m.
§
Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 225ZA:
Page 88, line 29, after ("derelict") insert ("contaminated").
§ The noble Lord said: At 2.30 in the morning, it is a lovely amendment that I have and it would be a wonderful thing if we could wake up enough for the Minister to accept it. Clause 105 extends the power to make grants for the reclamation of land. This is important. In that clause we say that land which is derelict, neglected and unsightly or which requires reclamation or improvement shall have a grant. I want to insert after "derelict" the word "contaminated". The Prime Minister in 1974 eulogised the Control of Pollution Act 1974. She considered this and couched her speech and phraseology as follows—and I am paraphrasing. She said that although it might be dull, this was one of the most important Acts we had to improve the quality of life in many parts of Britain. We shall do all we can to assist the passage of this Bill because it is of importance to the quality of life.
§ A great deal of land in our inner cities is unusable for many purposes because it is contaminated with chemicals. In our modern, sophisticated life—and I have an interest in the chemistry of pharmaceuticals—there is waste from all kinds of factories. Some of it is dangerous and highly contaminated. It is not mentioned in this Bill. Since it is contaminated with chemicals, there is a particular case for attention. This is particularly true in London. In the case of London's dockland, the reclamation of contaminated land is important; but let us remember that reclamation of land with chemical contamination may be more expensive and more necessary for the health and the life of the people who live contiguous to that land. Expensive reclamation is bound to be necessary for that kind of contamination. The Bill should make it clear that contaminated land will be included in the provisions for a grant. I could expand on this but this is not the time of day or night to do so. The nub of my amendment is clear. I hope that I shall get a positive answer. I beg to move.
1111§ The Earl of AVONAt 2.34 in the morning I am only sorry that I cannot be very helpful in response to the noble Lord's impassioned appeal. There is no statutory definition of derelict land. Now, however, to be rather Irish, I will give one. Contaminated land is included within the definition of derelict land for administrative purposes:
land so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment".So contaminated land is included.It is not necessary therefore to refer to such land specifically in this clause. Indeed, it would be illogical to do so without also referring to the other categories of land which come within the wide-ranging administrative definition including, for example, pit heaps, mineral excavations and disused industrial and railway land. It would be impracticable and make the application of grant more restrictive to spell out in the clause all the types of land attracting, derelict land grant under the present administrative definition; but contamination is included. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord DAVIES of LEEKI am grateful. That is a very pleasing reply. I am too tired now to expand my speech. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 225A:
§
Page 91, line 3, after ("section") insert (""county" includes Greater London and "district" includes a London borough, and accordingly—
§
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 319B. A problem has arisen concerning the eligibility of the council and the London boroughs to receive derelict land grants under Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972, as proposed to be amended by Clause 105(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. As it stands, Section 8
1112
of the 1972 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make derelict land grants to
the council of the county or county district in which the land in question is situated".
Section 14 of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, by an amendment to Section 8(4) of the 1972 Act, provides that
'county' includes Greater London and 'district' includes a London borough…".
Clause 105(2) of the Bill would substitute three new subsections for subsections (1) to (5) of Section 8 of the 1972 Act. The proposed new subsection (1) empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to
the council of the county or district
in which the land in question is situated. There will no longer be a subsection (4) of Section 8, so the amendment to the present subsection (4) made by Section 14 of the 1978 Act will no longer operate. Accordingly, the Council and the London boroughs would be excluded from any eligibility to receive grant under Section 8 of the 1972 Act as it would be amended by the Bill. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of AVONLet us end on a happy note. I accept the point made by the noble Lord that one effect of Clause 105(2) as presently drafted will be to deprive the London authorities of grant under Section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 to which they might otherwise have been entitled. This was certainly not our intention, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the point to my attention. I gladly agree the amendments which he has proposed.
§ Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 106 agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
§ Lord DENHAMThis is probably the time of the day when we might reasonably resume the House. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
§ House resumed.