House again in Committee on Clause 76.

[ Amendment No. 196 not moved.]

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:—

(i) a building which is listed under the provisions of section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; or

(ii) land which is designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; or

(iii) land which is affected by a Direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order 1977; or

(iv) land to which the Town and Country Planning (Landscape Areas Special Development) Order 1950 applies.").

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 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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.16 p.m.

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.31 p.m.

The noble Lord said: The secret is out. 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.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.39 p.m.

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 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 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.

8.50 p.m.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.58 p.m.

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

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

9.4 p.m.

9.21 p.m.

9.36 p.m.

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.

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.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 76, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

9.52 p.m.

Clause 77 [ Local plans—expedited procedure]:

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.2 p.m.

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.

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?

Clause 78 agreed to.

Schedule 11 [ Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:

10.7 p.m.

Page 150, line 20, at end insert—

("In section 7 of that Act (preparation of structure plans)—

(a) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;

(b) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6):—

"(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):—

(a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to the matters which they propose to include in the plan and to the proposed content of the explanatory memorandum relating to each such matter, and that the results of the survey under section 6 of this Act are publicly available"; and

(b) in subsection (2), after the word "State", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and of the explanatory memorandum".").

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.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the earlier amendment, which was agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[ Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

10.10 p.m.

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

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—

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[ Amendment No. 205 not moved.]

10.15 p.m.

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The noble Viscount said: We have debated this point and I formally beg to move the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Page 152, line 8, at end insert—

("In section 15 of that Act (alterations of local plans) —

(a) in subsection (3) for the word "the" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the words subject to subsection (4) of this section, the"; and

(b) The following subsection shall be added after subsection (3) —

(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.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.39 p.m.

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

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.48 p.m.

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Page 153, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) The following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph 7:—

"7A.—(1) The provisions of section 14(2) of this Act shall apply to a local plan prepared by a London borough council as it applies to a local plan prepared by a district planning authority and accordingly the provisions of section 14(5), (6) and (7) shall apply to a case where a London borough council has prepared a local plan with the substitution of references to "the Greater London Council" for references to "the county planning authority".

(2) Where in pursuance of paragraph 8(3) below a joint local plan has been prepared by two or more London borough councils, each shall apply to the Greater London Council in pursuance of the foregoing subparagraph.

(3) Where a joint local plan is prepared by one or more London borough councils and one or more adjacent planning authorities, each London borough council shall apply to the Greater London Council in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph and each of the other planning authorities (if they are district planning authorities) shall apply to the county planning authority for their respective area.

(4) Where a local plan is prepared by one or more London borough councils jointly with the Greater London Council the foregoing sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply.

(5) In the said Schedule 4, in paragraph 12(2) for the words "submitting it for approval" there shall be substituted the words "obtaining a certificate".

(6) In the said Schedule 4 in paragraph 7 for the words "12 and 14(5) to (7)" there shall be substituted the words "and 12".

7B. In section 15B of that Act the provisions of subsection (3) relating to alterations of a structure plan by a county planning authority, and the need for certification of local plans to conform with that structure plan as altered, shall apply to alterations to a structure plan prepared by the Greater London Council and, accordingly, in relation to such last-mentioned alterations for the reference in that subsection to "a county planning authority" there shall be substituted a reference to "the Greater London Council" and for the reference "every district planning authority" there shall be substituted a reference to "every London borough council"".")

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 agreed to.

10.57 p.m.

" . 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—

(4) An enforcement notice which relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—

may be issued only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.

(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—

(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—

including—

(10) The steps mentioned in subsection (7)( b) of this section are steps which consist of the carrying out of work —

(11) Where the matters which an enforcement notice alleges to constitute a breach of planning control include 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—

(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—

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—

(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—

(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—

(7)The Secretary of State—

(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—

the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any of the

specified grounds as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time.

(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—

(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

consideration; and any planning permission granted by him under that subsection may—

and where under that subsection he discharges a condition or limitation, he may substitute another condition or limitation for it, whether more or less onerous.

(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,—

(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)—

(2) In subsection (4) of that section (continuing failure to comply with enforcement notice)

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:—

3. In section 90 of that Act (power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice)—

4. In section 91 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by enforcement notice)—

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—

which relate to land in their area and to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies—

after the passing of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1979.

(3) A development order may make provision—

(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)—

"(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 (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)—

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—

(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.

(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—

(2) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(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—

(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—

(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—

the Secretary of State may determine the appeal without considering any of the specified grounds as to which the appellant has failed to give such information within that time.

(9) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the listed building enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending 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—

(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

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—

(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—

(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)—

16. In subsection (2) of section 109 of that Act (enforcement of control as to advertisements)—

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—

(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—

(a) has held an interest in the land since before the enforcement notice was issued under Part V of this Act; and

(b) did not have a copy of the enforcement notice served on him under that Part of this Act; and

(c) satisfies the court that—

(i) he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the enforcement notice had been issued; and

(ii) his interests have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him with a copy of it.

(2A) In any case where the enforcement notice was issued before the coming into force of Part VII of the Local Government, Plan- ning and Land Bill subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (a), the word "served" were substituted for the word "issued";

(b) the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (b):—

• "(b) did not have the enforcement notice or a copy of it served on him under that Part of that Act; and";

(c) in paragraph (c)(i), the word "served" were substituted for the word "issued".

(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—

(a) an enforcement notice; or

(b) a listed building enforcement notice,

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)—

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".

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)—

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 12 [ Further planning amendments]:

11.8 p.m.

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 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.

11.15 p.m.

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—

(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—

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—

but in any other case shall make an order confirming that the building should be listed,".")

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 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Page 156, line 45, at end insert—

("(3) Notice of an application made under subsection (1) above shall be given to the local planning authority within whose area the building is situated at the same time that the application is submitted to the Secretary of State.

(4) In subsection (3) of this section "local planning authority" shall, in relation to a building in Greater London, include the Greater London Council.")

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 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.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.37 p.m.

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.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[ Amendment No. 210B not moved.]

11.43 p.m.

Page 159, line 38, at end insert—

(". In section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (4) there shall be inserted the words "Other than in conservation areas"; and

(b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(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 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 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.