Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2005. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Commons Bill [HL].


Commons Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Duke for moving this probing amendment. It would unnecessarily restrict the power of the court to order the removal of unlawful works. We accept that in some cases where Clause 36 consent had been given but there was a minor departure from its terms, removals of all the works might not be appropriate. But I can equally envisage the possibility that the departure could be of such significance that the removal of all the works might be appropriate. The bottom line is that it is for the court to decide, depending on the circumstances of the case. We believe that the powers of the Bill are appropriate to enable it to do that. The court is not obliged to order the removal of works in response to an application. Of course the word ““may”” in subsection (2) implies a discretion. So if the court thinks that the breach of the requirement for consent is technical or that the application is unmerited, it need not grant the order sought. I hope that that satisfies the noble Duke.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c260-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Access Agriculture Construction Common land Land Enforcement Driving Environment protection Exemptions Local government Ownership Motor vehicles Protection Planning permission Powers Public interest Planning Management Property rights Registration Rights of way Wildlife Wind power Commons councils Village greens
Legislation
Commons Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk