Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 24:"Page 4, line 14, at end insert ““or the register falls to be amended under section (re-allocation of attached rights)””" The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 41 and 119, which are all government amendments. They focus on the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 41, which will enable commoners to retain control of rights of common where part of the holding to which those rights are attached is used for development. The clause responds to concern from a number of stakeholders that rights are under threat from development pressures affecting farm holdings to which rights are attached, whether because of schemes for new roads or reservoirs, farm diversification or the use of farmland for housing or commercial purpose. The clause inserted by Amendment No. 41 provides that the owner of the dominant tenement to which rights are attached may apply to the commons registration authority to exclude part of the dominant tenement from the register. An application may be made where the relevant part is not used for agricultural purposes or has planning permission for non-agricultural use. An application may also be made where the land is subject to a compulsory purchase order which has been confirmed but before the land is vested in the acquiring authority. It will be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations that provide what is and what is not to be regarded as use of land for agricultural purposes. So, for example, regulations may provide that land maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition in accordance with the cross-compliance conditions of the single payment scheme is to be regarded as in agricultural use, regardless of whether the land is actually in productive use. An application will not affect the number of rights attached to a dominant tenement. The effect of a successful application is simply that the register will be amended so that the rights become attached to the remaining part of the dominant tenement in the same ownership. We intend that an application should be made under the clause while the commoner remains in control of the entire dominant tenement. He may, for example, apply after the granting of planning permission for development of part of his holding but before he disposes of that land to a developer. However, Amendment No. 119 would enable an amendment to be made to the register in consequence of an application under the new clause, even where the application land had ceased to be owned by the applicant since the date of the application. Subject to that power, the provision will be of no use to a commoner once he has disposed of any part of his dominant tenement. Once he has ceased to own part of that land, the rights will obviously pass to the purchaser, so it will be important that action is taken in anticipation of development. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 effect some modest refinements to Clause 8, on the apportionment of rights, in consequence of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 41. That is because we need to provide for a situation in which an application is made under the new clause by someone who owns only part of a registered dominant tenement so it will be necessary to apportion the rights relating to the applicant’s part of the dominant tenement before processing the application under the new clause. In short, the two amendments ensure that that can be done in relation to applications under the new clause. The present wording of Clause 8(2), which refers to,"““a disposition relating to an apportioned right””," does not appear to apply to the particular circumstances of an application under the new clause. We believe that, taken together, the amendments represent a useful mechanism to ensure that rights of common remain in agricultural use. I beg to move.