| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen: I take those strictures seriously. When one is criticised from one's own side of the House one must take it extremely seriously. I have no desire whatsoever to attempt to ride roughshod over the Chamber. However, I wish to make one point. This hybrid Bill--it is now into its second parliamentary Session of consideration--is a very complex piece of legislation. It has been the subject of detailed
parliamentary consideration through the hybrid Bill procedure, using the Select Committee route. For that reason, it is rather different from a public Bill, or from a private Peer's Bill. The work that has gone on through the Select Committee in the intervening months must be taken into account. I do not think that an hour's discussion on the Floor of the House is sufficient to consider in detail the representations and petitions that were made to the Select Committee. A study of the committee's proceedings and report and the undertakings that were given to it is essential to a full understanding of what is suggested in this Bill.Having said that, I shall of course give careful consideration to what has been said. Between now and Report stage I shall read in detail the words that have been put forward by a number of noble Lords from all sides of the House. I recognise the expertise in land and planning matters that is represented within your Lordships' House. Having said that, I reiterate that this matter has been considered at great length over a long period between the protagonists, but we are some way apart. It is the contention of the Government and the promoters that accepting an amendment of this nature, which would allow the Secretary of State's powers to be examined plot by plot, piece by piece, would create such enormous uncertainty about the construction of what is a flagship project for this country that it would have very serious consequences indeed for the project. I am sure that that is not what the Chamber wants. I hope that between now and Report stage we can have further discussions. I should certainly be more than willing to meet any noble Lord to discuss the specific issues to see whether my ability to explain them could be enhanced.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may venture to correct one misapprehension in the mind of my noble friend Lord Goschen by reminding him that public Bills, private Bills and hybrid Bills all have the same effect in law, however much detailed consideration has been given to them.
Lord Cornwallis: I am feeling exhausted and I should think the Minister probably is, too. I listened carefully to what he said. I believe there is a fatal misunderstanding about what the amendment sets out to achieve. We hear that its effect will be to delay the Bill and create bureaucracy. I believe it would do exactly the opposite. The Minister looks forward to the future, while those who move this amendment do so in the light of experience. Experience of the past in these matters does not necessarily lead one to feel trustful.
We have had an exhaustive discussion. I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment and spoken at such length on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Acquisition outside limits shown on deposited plans]:
5.15 p.m.
Clause 11 [Fees for planning applications]:
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 8:
The noble Viscount said: I trust that this amendment will cause a little less heat than the preceding ones. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 9 and 32. This group of amendments is designed to increase the flexibility of the fee regulations contemplated by Clause 11 and to allow the Secretaries of State to make regulations to extend the time that the local planning authority has to determine a request for approval if necessary in the unlikely event that the cheque settling the fee has been dishonoured. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 9:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Those Members who have taken an interest in the heritage aspects of this Bill may recall that I spoke at Second Reading to express my concerns about the inadequate provisions which had been made to safeguard the future of St. Pancras Chambers, the remarkable listed gasholders and the unique steam locomotive waterpoint on the railway lands behind the station. At that time I declared an interest, being a Commissioner of English Heritage. I do so again this afternoon.
I was subsequently delighted to hear that the promoters, London and Continental Railways Ltd. (LCR), had addressed the concerns that I spoke of. A competition is to be held to select a developer for the Chambers and agreement has been reached between LCR and English Heritage on a plan to dismantle the listed gasholders and waterpoint for re-use elsewhere in the area. I am sure that noble Lords will share my pleasure at this news and wish to congratulate LCR on its helpful and responsible attitude to these important heritage issues.
My purpose in speaking today is to draw attention to a final but significant issue which has emerged in recent months and which would have very serious implications for the magnificent train shed at St. Pancras, a Grade I listed building, which is rightly regarded as a Victorian masterpiece of world significance.
Under the provisions of the Bill, conventional conservation legislation will be disapplied and, along with it, the normal safeguards for listed buildings. In its place are two key documents. One is the Planning and Heritage Minimum Requirements; the other is the Heritage Agreement for Camden, otherwise known as the draft Heritage Deed.
The minimum requirements is a useful but very general statement of broad intent which, like a planning brief, provides a loose framework of general constraints on change in the absence of any detailed scheme. It is helpful, as far as it goes, as a statement of broad aspirations.
The procedure for the consideration of the detailed proposals for St. Pancras is set out in the Heritage Agreement for Camden. It is this which I contend is seriously flawed and which raises a fundamental question of principle, not entirely unlike the last raft of agreement which attracted so much discussion.
In other recent railway Bills where normal listed building consent procedures have been disapplied, either full details of the impact of the scheme have been available for Parliament to consider or an adequate alternative mechanism has been in place, allowing for full agreement to be reached later with interested parties, such as English Heritage. That is not the case here. What is being proposed is wholly unprecedented, which is why it is a matter of such grave concern.
I read the sections of the Select Committee proceedings which applied. Here I should like to echo earlier remarks. Having been on such a committee myself, I am full of admiration for the work it has done and for its thoroughness. Perhaps I may quote two sentences from the Select Committee's report. The first is:
The second sentence that I quote is:
Finally, I might be forgiven for feeling that in the Select Committee report there is a hint that heritage issues did not take a very prominent part in the thinking. I discovered only three or four paragraphs. But maybe that is unfair and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who could easily correct me, is in the Chamber.
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert--
(".--(1) The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision about fees for relevant planning applications.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may, in particular--
(a) make provision for the payment to the authority to which a relevant planning application is made of a fee of a prescribed amount,
(b) make provision for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or part) in prescribed circumstances,
(c) make provision for a prescribed fee to be treated as paid in prescribed circumstances,
(d) make provision about the time for payment of a prescribed fee,
(e) make provision about the consequences of non-payment of a prescribed fee, including provision for the termination of the application concerned or any appeal against its refusal, and
(f) make provision for the resolution of disputes.
(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may--
(a) make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as the appropriate Ministers think fit, and
(b) make different provision for different cases.").
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("conferred by") and insert ("to make regulations under").
"throughout our consideration of the Bill we have been impressed with the promoters' handling of environmental matters and we have no reason to believe that they will act as Philistines when they come to St Pancras".
I take no issue with that; all the evidence is that the promoters are not Philistines. However, it has to be said that that is an opinion. It is based on things that the promoters have said and it does not guarantee anything for St. Pancras.
"The Committee has no doubt that the draft Heritage Deed meets the interests of the petitioners".
English Heritage was a petitioner and I do not believe that statement to be valid.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page