Clause 76 - Loss payments: exclusions
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
3:00 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing my homework for me. I should like to raise a subject on which we need clarification from the Minister. As far as those notices are concerned, the issue of what is a reasonable requirement is relevant. However, if that matter will be discussed in a clause stand part debate, I would be happy to be told to leave it until later. Subsection (4)(d) contains a good example of an unreasonable requirement. I can see how the relevant body might say, ''Well, if you do not repair this building, we might have to compulsorily purchase it so that we can do something about it.'' I went round that course in my local government days, and I understand the arguments well.
The wording of new section 33D(4)(d) states:
''notice under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (repairs notice prior to compulsory notice of acquisition''.
Does that mean that it would be possible to serve a notice on someone that said, ''You must do this so that we can compulsorily acquire it''? In the context of new subsections (a), (b) and (c), I understand (d) to say, ''If you do not do this, we might have to acquire it in the greater public interest because that is, perhaps, the right way to go about it. This notice says that you must do this, and we could compulsorily purchase this listed building.'' That is extraordinary. It would seem
that if a local authority or the Government wanted a listed building that was in a clapped-out state, they would tell someone to renovate it and then take it from them, rather than acquire it and renovate it themselves. If that is what the new section means, it is outrageous and it raises all kinds of other questions. I hope that the Minister will put me out of my misery, so that I do not have to pursue the point.