Housing and Regeneration Bill

My Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are in the group. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 64, which is more straightforward and is about the power set out in paragraph 9 to curtail the decision-making process. It states: "““The Secretary of State may make a final decision without further investigation … if … the Secretary of State””," thinks the grounds of the objection are fully understood—I am paraphrasing—and that he is satisfied that there is sufficient information available. That is slightly different from the normal position whereby the highways authority would extinguish a public right of way, rather than, in this case, the Secretary of State on behalf of the HCA. We have a position whereby the appeal is to the Secretary of State against the Secretary of State’s decision. Normally an appeal on a right of way is to the Secretary of State against a decision of the local highway authority. So already we have a situation that is not quite as transparent or fair, perhaps, as it normally is. Equally, I understand that at the moment an objection to a proposal to extinguish a right of way invariably goes to a public inquiry. The provision says that under these circumstances it will not invariably go to a public inquiry, but the Secretary of State may decide that a public inquiry is not required and it will just be done anyhow. That is a lessening of the rights of objectors compared with the normal circumstances. I would like to understand why, if I have understood it correctly, the Government think that that is necessary or desirable. Amendment No. 63 is substantially more complicated in that it seeks to remove most of Part 2 of Schedule 3 and replace it with a provision that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should apply. I think that we are talking about two things here. My noble friend Lady Miller talked about footpaths and that kind of low-level right of way, which are very important, but if we are talking about major comprehensive developments that substantially change the character of existing localities—for example, building a new town—clearly the whole pattern of all kinds of highways, from roads to footpaths and everything in between, will be substantially changed. As I understand it, the existing legislation is similar to what is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 3, but is it the same? Legislation to allow this has existed since the New Towns Act 1946. There can be no argument that if major developments which completely remove the existing road and footpath pattern and create a new one are going to take place, substantial legal changes have to take place as well. The question whether the development is desirable is a different, planning issue, but if it is decided to proceed, new road patterns will often need to replace former highway networks. Nevertheless, new legislation should not be allowed to follow existing precedents blindly without it being considered whether they are fittest for the intended purpose. Just because something has existed for the past 50 or 60 years does not mean that it is the right way to proceed now, particularly as local authority structures have changed. In all cases, the primary Acts which operate at the moment and allow radical revision of highway networks are supplemented by regulations that set out the detailed procedures for extinguishing or diverting existing roads, footpaths and bridleways. They all provide for named national and regional voluntary bodies to be notified of applications for orders—in the case of footpaths and bridleways, for example—as well as requiring advertisement. Will the Government confirm that, if Schedule 3 were to be passed, detailed regulations would set out the procedures, and that the practice of notifying named national and regional voluntary bodies will continue? Does Part 2 of the schedule repeat exactly the powers in the existing legislation or is it different? Are there minor differences? Are there major differences? If there are differences, will the Government tell us what they are so that we can understand why the changes are being made? My amendment would simply adopt one of the well established procedures in Schedule 14 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government may not wish to do that, but if they do not wish merely to re-enact existing legislation, they have to tell us what the changes are and why they are being made. If they are re-enacting existing legislation, why is it not being changed in response to changed circumstances? They are two sides of the same coin. It is a probing amendment.