HL Deb 09 March 1987 vol 485 cc883-6

7.24 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that the regulations laid before the House on 6th February 1987 be approved.

Your Lordships will be aware that these regulations were approved by a Committee of the other place on 25th February 1987. The purpose of these regulations is to make provision for the abatement—in certain prescribed circumstances—of the amount of compensation payable by planning authorities in respect of loss, damage or abortive expenditure arising from an order to restrict mineral workings. The House will be aware, however, that the framework of the regulations, the principles of abatement and the circumstances in which abatement may be made, were extensively considered by Parliament in 1981, during the passage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act.

The provisions of that Act stemmed in the main from recommendations made by the Stevens Committee which had been appointed to consider the operation of the general planning system in relation to the special problems of mineral extraction. Mineral extraction is of course subject to the same general planning law as other forms of development and the Committee recommended a number of new measures to enable old permissions for mineral workings to be brought into line with present-day standards. However, the committee recognised that it would not be reasonable to expect the local authorities, or their ratepayers to bear the full financial burden of bringing old minerals permissions to modern standards in the way which is usually required by planning law when established rights are altered. They recommended that, in view of the special characteristics of mineral extraction, the minerals industry should accept "reasonable" additional costs arising from the changes in conditions.

During the passage of the 1981 Act it was recognised that the compensation arrangements would be very important for the operation of the Act and there was considerable debate about the proportion of the costs that it would be reasonable for the industry to bear. As a result, an amendment was introduced by the Government which effectively defined the upper and lower limits of the amount by which compensation might be abated. These regulations make provision for the way in which that abatement is arrived at.

The text of the regulations is complicated, as your Lordships will have seen, and it might be useful if I gave a brief example of how the regulations will operate. I should stress at the outset that these regulations deal in the main with the abatement of compensation, not with the actual calculation of compensation itself. They make some modifications to what should be considered when assessing compensation, but their real import is to provide a means of calculating abatement.

First, a planning authority would undertake a review of a minerals site within their area and would decide that they needed to take action. They would then proceed to make an order indicating what steps the minerals operator needed to take to bring the site up to the required standard. When such an order is made the operator is then due compensation for the action taken by the planning authority. It is however considered reasonable, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the planning authority should not have to bear the full cost of compensation and that the minerals operator should bear some of the burden through reduced compensation. Therefore, in certain specified circumstances these regulations now before us would then come into play. Basically what will happen is that the full compensation due to the operator will be assessed. Then using the terms of the regulations, an amount will be arrived at by which the compensation should be reduced. Either this will be a lump set out in the regulations, or a figure arrived at taking into account the notional value of the relevant minerals at the site and the estimated life of the site, depending on the type of order the planning authority has made. That in the simplest terms is a rough and ready outline of what the regulations cover.

The formulation of these regulations, within the framework of the 1981 Minerals Act, proved very complicated and exposed a number of contradicting interests. A very real effort has been made to reach a reasonable accommodation of those conflicts however and I commend these regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having threaded his way through a complicated brief. I looked quickly at the 1972 Act and realised that it had nothing much to do with this matter at all: it is the 1981 Act which applies. Most of the modifications in respect of the compensation restrictions stem from the new duty that was laid upon planning authorities to review these mineral workings and to decide what should be done to modify and improve them. Indeed, where they had been stopped for two years (I believe that was the figure given) it was to be construed as unlikely to be continued, and certain things were then agreed and laid down in relation to the compensation and conditions that should be imposed upon those who had been carrying out the mineral workings. It was, as the noble Earl said, pretty well laid down in relation to how the compensation should be calculated and abated, the percentage of 10 per cent. and the prescribed figure, and I think it is eventually reduced to not less than £2,500, or something or other. It is complicated.

The safeguard for us here surely is in who was consulted in relation to the regulations. I believe that it was laid down that there should be consultation with those mining operators who were concerned with it, with the owners of interests in the land and also the planning authorities. Can the noble Earl assure us that these consultations, which to my mind are statutory, have been carried out?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I agree with him that it is often difficult with regulations of this kind which relate to other legislation to know whether one should go back to 1972, 1981 or indeed to some other date altogether.

On the question that the noble Lord asked me I can assure him that consultations have been carried out. The groups of consultees concerned are, first, the CBI, Scotland, the British aggregate construction materials industries, the sand and gravel associations, the National Coal Board and the National Federation of Licensed Opencast Coal Operators.

In addition, other bodies and interested parties that have been considered include the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the NFU, Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, CoSLA, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Scotland, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning and the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that list. It is a rather intriguing list bearing in mind that paragraph 1(2) says that the regulations do not apply to the National Coal Board.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 until 8.5 p.m.]