Clause
8
Extinguishment
of private rights of
way
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 8, page 5, line 41, leave
out subsection
(4).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 10, in
clause 8, page 5, line 44, leave out
subsections (2)(b) and (4)’ and insert ‘subsection
(2)’.
Stephen
Hammond:
Amendment No. 10 is necessarily a consequential
amendment to amendment No. 9, which I am sure that the Minister will
wish to accept.
The
clause deals with the extinguishment of private rights of way.
Subsection (2) extinguishes private rights of
way,
“in the case of land
acquired after the coming into force of this Act, at the appropriate
time.”
It is
clearly a sensible power; private rights of way could
not and should not take precedence over land acquired for the building
and construction of Crossrail, and, therefore, cannot take precedence
over the land on which the railway is also
operating.
However,
subsection (4), which amendment No. 9 seeks to address, appears to act
contrary to the purpose of subsection (2)(b). Clause 8(4) states
that:
“Subsection
(2)(b) does not apply to a right of way that is
excepted”,
which
effectively counters and reverses subsection (2)(b), rendering the
provisions in it null and void, because the Secretary of State can
direct that the right of way be excepted from extinguishment. It seems
to us that the Secretary of State could effectively acquire land for
the purposes of construction, yet allow the private rights of way to
persist. That would seem to be potentially injurious to the citizen and
disruptive to the building and operation of
Crossrail.
10.15
am
If the intent
of clause 8(4) is to allow the Secretary of State to
regrant rights of way after the end of construction, during which land
that may have been required for build but not operational purposes had
its private rights of way extinguished, that is understandable. If that
is the intent, perhaps the Minister will explain how subsection (4)
will achieve it. Otherwise, subsections (2)(b) and (4) appear to be
contrary in purpose. Therefore, the amendment would help the Government
by removing that contrary
aim.
Mr.
Harris:
The purpose of clause 8 is to extinguish most
private rights of way over land held by the Secretary of State where
that land is required for or in connection with the Crossrail project.
That will ensure that the Crossrail works can be carried out safely and
effectively. Such provision—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman
knows what I am about to say—is well precedented in previous
private Acts for railways and can be found in the Channel Tunnel Act
1987.
Some private
rights of way are protected under the clause. For example, subsection
(3) provides for certain rights of way to be excluded from being
extinguished. Subsection (4), which amendment No. 9 would delete,
further enables the Secretary of State to direct that particular
private rights of way are not automatically extinguished under
subsection (2) and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment
would take that right away from the Secretary of State and remove that
additional protection. Therefore, I cannot ask the Committee to support
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is
saying and following his logic, but will he explain under what
circumstances the Secretary of State will want those
powers?
Mr.
Harris:
There are circumstances when we will want to
protect some rights of way. One example that was considered with regard
to the clause is the rights of way that help utility operators to
maintain their apparatus. Amendment No. 10 would allow subsection (5)
to be altered in association with amendment No. 9, so I cannot support
it
either.
Although
the hon. Member for Wimbledon appears to be concerned about the
Secretary of State’s involvement in relation to the
extinguishment of private rights of way, that particular role is
intended to help to protect such rights of way from extinguishment when
reasonably avoidable. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to the Minister and, as
he rightly said, anticipated his comments about precedent—I
sometimes feel a little like the barman who says, “The
usual?” when a customer comes
in.
Mr.
Harris:
Martinis
again.
Stephen
Hammond:
If that is what the Minister drinks.
I am fully aware that the clause
aims to give protection, but I seek the exact circumstances in which
private rights of way will be accepted. The Minister has given a
perfectly plausible example, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10
Planning:
general
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 10, page 7, line 7, at
end insert—
‘(c) the
development falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled
works.’.
The
Minister has often said that I might anticipate what he is about to
say, but he might equally anticipate what I am about to say. Clauses 10
to 15 deal with the planning issues that affect Crossrail. The general
presumption is that planning permission will be granted unless there
are exceptional
circumstances.
Clause
10 provides for the deemed planning permission to exist under part III
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Subsection (1) provides that
planning permission be granted for the development except where limited
by subsection (2). The amendment would put a further restriction on the
process. At line 7, it would insert new paragraph (c), which states
that
“the development
falls within the limits of deviation for the scheduled
works.”
The
effect of subsections (1) and (2) is that any land stated for the use
of the Crossrail development will be deemed to have planning
permission. Why should it be any land? The amendment would impose a
reasonable restriction on the Secretary of State or the nominated
undertaker.
As I have
said before, there is a deemed route and a schedule of works. There are
agreed limitations of deviation to that route. As with previous
amendments, I contend that the limits of deviation are a fair
restriction on those powers. By adding that the development must fall
within those limits of deviation, the amendment would have the effect
of deeming planning permission for developments on the deemed route and
land outside the route that is within the deemed limits of deviation,
but not on land beyond that. In my opinion, that is
fair.
As
the Minister will remember, we have gone through the arguments as to
why there ought to be some restriction on the powers, while still
giving flexibility. I think that the amendment satisfies both those
tests. I trust that he will find it reasonable and
fair.
Mr.
Harris:
I stand reluctantly to disappoint the hon.
Gentleman once again. The amendment would require separate planning
permission to be sought for any works authorised by the Bill that were
not scheduled works and which fell outside the limits of deviation. In
practice, that would affect a wide category of works—for
example, alterations to existing stations, electrification and
signalling works on the existing
network, and works to mitigate settlement impacts. All those things
often take place outside the limits of deviation of
works.
Requiring
separate planning permission to be sought for such works would
undermine the very purpose of the Bill, which is to obtain deemed
planning permission for the works reasonably required to enable
Crossrail to be built, where there has been appropriate environmental
assessment. The amendment would expose the project to the risk of
severe delays as local authorities considered applications for such
works under the 1990 Act regime. That would include the possibility of
public inquiries. Works other than scheduled works are, like the
scheduled works themselves, subject to the detailed consent regime set
out in schedule 7. The Government believe that that provides for the
appropriate
scrutiny.
Mr.
Field:
I am very curious about this issue. Can the
Minister give examples of any stations that are outside the limits of
deviation? Given the importance of stations within a railway project, I
cannot foresee any of the stations being outside the limits of
deviation. That puts a coach and horses through his argument on the
works in the vicinity of stations
themselves.
Mr.
Harris:
No doubt inspiration will descend upon me shortly,
but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—for example, on the issue
of signalling works. Crossrail will result in a large step change in
the number of through trains going through the capital city. That will
have a knock-on effect on capacity demands elsewhere on the network.
Therefore, if we are to accommodate the extra people travelling through
the centre of the city, works might be needed at stations not
associated with
Crossrail.
We
anticipate significant increases in passenger numbers throughout
London. If we have to make changes to signalling, tracks or stations
that do not lie directly within the Crossrail line, it is incumbent on
us to ensure that we can carry out those improvements without imposing
undue delay on the construction of
Crossrail.
The
Government believe that the Bill provides for the appropriate scrutiny
of detailed matters, given the deemed planning permission that will
have been given to these
works.
It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
