Clause 6. — (Limitations or Conditions Attached to Office Development Permit.)

Ballot for Notices of Motions – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 14th April 1965.

Alert me about debates like this

1.0 a.m.

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "limitations" and to insert: restrictions on the making of an application for planning permission for that development". It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendrnent we were to take Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker:

If that is the wish of the House.

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

These Amendments deal with matters raised in the Standing Committee. The main point about this Clause is that it outlines the constitution of an office development permit. The present draft of the Bill distinguishes between limitations and conditions. Limitations are things placed on the application for an office development permit, and conditions are things that are placed in a planning permission. There was a certain amount of confusion in Committee, and in the Amendment I have moved we seek to substitute for the word "limitations" the words in the Notice Paper, so as to make it clear that these are events which take place before the planning permission is given. It also makes clear that what we mean by "restrictions" is restrictions on the making of the application for planning permission. We do not have in mind any restrictions on the grant of planning permission.

Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 are consequential on No. 24.

By Amendment No. 26 we seek to leave out the words "necessary or expedient" and to substitute for them appropriate in the exercise of their discretion as mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act". This point also arose in the Committee, where there were suggestions that there was some sinister meaning to be attached to the words "necessary or expedient"; and that they might mean a very wide discretion being exercised in an improper manner. It was also suggested that the term also left at large any comparison with Clause 1. We therefore suggest that there should be a specific linking with Clause 1(4). These points are all designed to make the Bill more understandable, and more in line with what hon. Members were asking for in Committee.

Photo of Sir John Hall Sir John Hall , Wycombe

As the hon. Member has said, there was some discussion in Committee, and not a little confusion, about the use of the words "limitations" and "restrictions". The discussion arose on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), and I am sure that he would welcome these Amendments. I think, however, that he might be disappointed to find that the words "or otherwise" in line 28, to which he also took exception, have not been deleted by the Minister. Nevertheless, one must be content with small mercies, and we welcome these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 26, leave out from "whom" to "may" in line 27 and insert "such an application".

In line 28, leave out "necessary or expedient" and insert appropriate in the exercise of their discretion as mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act". In line 30, leave out "limitations" and insert "restrictions".

In line 32, leave out "otherwise than within those limitations" and insert which does not comply with those restrictions ".—[Mr. MacColl.]