| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, it has been a valuable debate. It is unfortunate that it has come at a somewhat late stage of the Bill. Previous debate on this issue has always been late in the evening. There is considerable concern in sections of the community about the changes in the legislation on compulsory purchase. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the word "think" which several noble Lords have questioned. The word appears several times in the legislation. The noble Lord has justified its use by saying that "think" does not necessarily mean what outside people might assume. There is concern in the outside world about authorities being able simply to "think" that they need land rather than having real reason compulsorily to purchase it.
As my noble friend Lord Peel said, the compulsory purchase of land is fundamental to human rights. It is important that people understand clearly their rights, and the rights of local authorities to purchase land. There is concern and confusion over Amendment No. 87. Our wording may be more satisfactory than the wording of the Government.
I shall not repeat my noble friend's arguments. He set them out carefully and clearly. We may have to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 87. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 87:
- Page 74, line 16, leave out "will facilitate" and insert "is necessary for"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 87) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 39.
Alderdice, L.
Attlee, E.
Byford, B.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Cobbold, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craigavon, V.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L. [Teller]
Harris of Richmond, B.
Howe, E.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Liverpool, E.
Luke, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Monson, L.
Northesk, E.
Peel, E.
Seccombe, B.
Shrewsbury, E.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Wilcox, B.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mitchell, L.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rooker, L.
Sawyer, L.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Triesman, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wilkins, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 115 [Grants for advice and assistance]:
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 90:
- Page 100, line 15, leave out "to the public"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 90 is to enable the Government to make grants available to local access groups of disabled people. I shall be brief and will not detain the House on the case for funding which I set out at length in Committee and at Report stage. I again invite my noble friend to consider reinstating government funding for local access groups, which was withdrawn in 1998. Core funding used to be provided to the Access Committee for England which successfully nurtured and supported the network of access groups.
We desperately need this national umbrella or framework to build anew in both England and Wales. The Disability Rights Commission has now completed its research into access groups in England and Wales and is ready with recommendations which I would urge Ministers to heed. With hopes of favourable news, I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall not beat about the bush—we are happy to accept the amendment. We would be interested to see the forthcoming research report from the Disability Rights Commission on the work of local access groups in England and Wales and will give serious consideration to the recommendations, in particular any underfunding of resources.
I have to say that we do not have a fund set aside for assisting local access groups. Nevertheless, we wish to hold discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, the Disability Rights Commission and others, to see how we may take the issue forward. In the mean time, I am happy to accept the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the way he has listened. His decision will greatly benefit developers and local authorities alike in creating an inclusive environment for disabled people. I also add my thanks for the Government amendment to Clause 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Crown application]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 91:
- Page 117, line 19, at beginning insert "For"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I want to return briefly to the matter of Crown immunity, which I raised on the last occasion. At that stage I declared an interest, in that this amendment, if agreed, would have an effect on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which asked me to table it. The amendment is different from the one that I introduced on Report. It arises as a result of having read Hansard and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which stimulated everyone into thinking again about it.
The Minister objected to the previous amendment on the grounds that it would mean that planning permission would have to be obtained for all disposals of Crown land if the use was to continue, as he said, even in the most trivial cases. He considered that the
amendment would place an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on both the Crown and local planning authorities.This amendment relates to the attachment of a planning permission as Crown land is turned into private ownership. The purpose of this amendment is not to seek to control those uses where the impact of that use is trivial, but to control those uses where the use causes a great deal of disturbance to local residents or has other adverse impact on the local community.
As the amendment as originally proposed was not acceptable, the suggested way forward that this amendment produces is to give to local planning authorities the power to take enforcement action when there is a disposal of Crown land to a private owner. Local planning authorities would therefore be able to take enforcement action only when it is expedient to do so. The normal sanction of an award of costs for an unreasonable exercise of the power by a local planning authority will apply. The amendment also proposes that the time for taking such enforcement action, rather than the usual 10-year period, is a more limited period of five years from the date of the disposal of the land, and residential users would be excluded.
The kinds of uses that we have in mind are major fairs and tented events that take place on Crown land, where enormous lorries cause great difficulty for residents. There are many uses of fringe Crown land, which would not require planning permission as a result of being transferred to private owners where the Crown had immunity in the past.
I hope that the Minister will be able to consider this matter a little further and that I do not receive quite such a brush off as I did last time. Although the amendment affects my own borough, it also affects any local authority's Crown land that passes or is sold into private ownership. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, having been accused of a cursory reply on Report and a brush-off reply now, I do not feel obliged to apologise for the length of my reply at this time of the day. I had intended to use the first and last paragraph, but clearly that is not sufficient.
The noble Baroness has returned to the issue of Section 301 of the principal Act, as she indicated she might when we debated this matter on Report. We have heard that a new approach has been adopted by giving local planning authorities up to five years to serve an enforcement notice on the purchaser of Crown land if the use instituted by the Crown is continued after disposal. Although the noble Baroness's proposals have changed, we still believe that these amendments represent a disproportionate attempt to solve a problem that should not arise very often.
It appears that the requirement for planning permission arises only after the Crown has disposed of the land. Until that date, the Crown may have a notice, which is to be treated as though it were planning permission, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. In any event, the requirement for planning permission
appears to bite only when the land is sold. If that is right, the Crown could not apply for planning permission in anticipation of disposal and the purchaser could not be sure that he would be able to obtain planning permission after disposal. If he failed to obtain permission, the local planning authority would be able to commence enforcement action within five years. That would put the Crown in a worse position than it is now in, because it can now apply for planning permission in anticipation of disposal.This procedure would cut across the transitional provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 4, which will have effect after commencement. Where a proposed change of use has been through the Circular 1884 procedure and has been found acceptable, paragraph 3 of that schedule will apply. The effect will be that the notice of the acceptability of the development will be treated as if it is planning permission, subject to any conditions stated in it. This is directly contradictory to the noble Baroness's amendment.
The noble Baroness's amendment seems to me to go even further into overkill. Its effect is that any use instigated by the Crown will be vulnerable to enforcement if the land is sold into private use. This will be so even if the local planning authority itself has agreed to the change of use through the Circular 1884 procedure without suggesting discontinuance on disposal by the Crown.
The provision is not expressly limited to recent changes of use and its effect in this respect is not clear. It may be that changes of use instituted by the Crown many centuries ago could be caught by this amendment. The effect will be that disposal programmes will be thrown into uncertainty, which is an unsatisfactory outcome for all parties.
In short, the amendment exceeds what is necessary to cure the evil at which it is aimed. If a problem exists in a particular case, the local planning authority has a remedy. It can make an order requiring the discontinuance of the offending use, and pay compensation in the normal way. The noble Baroness's amendment is therefore a disproportionate means of resolving the problem, which should be small if local planning authorities, particularly her own, approach the Crown with sensible proposals. Her local authority is a sensible authority. It can use the remedy which already exists and therefore I urge her to withdraw her amendment.
I hope that that reply will be considered fulsome and wholesome. It is certainly not cursory or intended as a brush-off.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page