The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was speaking when the debate was adjourned. The Minister, to conclude.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962— Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill has been very comprehensive and I welcome the many points raised and suggestions made in the course of it. At this stage, it is true to say that the Bill has been pretty well received and the House does recognise the need for this type of planning legislation. Quite a few doubts were expressed by a number of Deputies about certain aspects of the provisions of the Bill, and at this stage I propose to deal only with the main points raised. I should like to assure the House that if I do not deal with all the points raised, minor as well as major, it is not because I am not aware of them, and I can give an assurance that they will be completely and fully considered between now and Committee Stage in every aspect as they have been put here in the House.
Deputy Jones agrees that planning authorities should be relieved of the obligation to produce a planning scheme of the kind envisaged in the 1934 Act. He also then goes on to welcome the provisions in this Bill providing for a more practical and less rigid form of development plan. He puts forward the view that the Bill is more suited to deal with urban than rural problems and that it is really suited to the problems of large centres of population such as Dublin and the other cities.
Deputy Hogan, who followed him some time later, thought that provision should be made to give priority to the planning of those large urban centres and that we should leave over the planning of other areas till a later date.
These views, as the House is well aware, have not been accepted by many Deputies, including Deputies Barry, P. J. Burke and Tully, who feel differently, that there is a need, and an outstanding one for planning in the rural areas. I should like to point out that the Bill does, in fact, recognise that there is a distinction, and without any doubt, a very clear one, between urban and rural problems. Section 19, for instance, requires that the development plans for urban areas must include objectives which are somewhat different from the objectives which must be included in the development plans for rural areas. In the rural areas, the same type of development plan will not be necessary, but that is not to say that rural planning problems do not exist.
One may mention the obvious problem of the preservation and improvement of natural amenities which are of such vital importance to the tourist industry. An examination of the Third Schedule to the Bill will disclose the variety of matters which might be dealt with in a development plan. It will be the duty of each planning authority to make its choice of the particular matter or matters appropriate to its own needs and its own capabilities.
Several Deputies referred to the position of development plans in relation to the control of land use. The development plan will form the framework against which development will be guided by the planning authority. Unlike the planning scheme envisaged under the 1934 Act, the development plan will not fix the final and detailed destiny of every last iota of land on the map. It will in fact declare the authority's policy in broad but definite terms for the development of its entire area. Emphasis should be laid on the broad though definite terms rather than the detailed procedure that was called for and was desired and laid down in this House as being required under the 1943 Act. There is that very distinct difference, though both measures would, and are intended to, reach the same end, that is, controlled, proper planning and so on throughout the country and throughout the territory of every planning authority in the country.
These development plans, of which words we hear quite a lot, must be based on surveys which will give a picture of the existing situation in respect of, first, population structure and trends; secondly, land use, location of residential accommodation and its relationship with industry, commerce and public utilities; thirdly, traffic requirements; and fourthly, industrial and commercial resources and potential, including capacity of existing services and communications and relationship to shipping and airport facilities. Finally, the surveys will embrace the needs and facilities for leisure, education and other community developments.
An analysis of the surveys will show the unused resources of individual areas, their suitability for particular forms of industrial and commercial development and their needs for improved amenities and community facilities.
The Bill also provides that development plans may be made in stages. Again, I think that is important from the point of view of the approach of our local authorities to this rather onerous and probably somewhat difficult task. Later plans will be filled in as planning and development activities proceed. Developing techniques in industry and commerce influence both the kind and amount of land and services required. Social attitudes and needs are subject to growth and changes, and economic conditions vary. These factors will be reflected in the planning authorities' assessment at the periodic reviews of development plans.
Reference has also been made in the debate to the question of the zoning of land use. The Bill provides that in the cities and towns the development plan shall indicate the objectives for the use solely or primarily of particular areas for particular purposes, whether residential, commercial, for industry, agriculture or otherwise. Thus the indication of an area as an area primarily for residential use will not necessarily mean that the establishment there of a shopping or office centre is precluded. Similarly, the provision of dwellings or even light industries is not necessarily precluded in an area indicated as a commercial area. The aim must be to follow the trends of voluntary development and to study carefully the wishes of property owners. Trends damaging to the values and amenities of existing properties and to the interests of the community must obviously be restrained and restricted.
The need for planning of land use and the value of such planning to the prospective developer and industrialist were well stated by Deputies, notably Deputies Crinion and Clinton. I fully agree with Deputy Clinton's view as to the need for a positive contribution by local authorities towards creating employment opportunities in their areas. I also share his views as to the necessity for planning authorities to consult outside interests in relation to community development. The making of a development plan will be a function of the elected members. People should consider that and let it sink in—the making of a development plan will be the function of the elected members of our planning authorities. On these bodies as elected members we have serving many successful business men, farmers, representatives of farmers' organisations, members of chambers of commerce and of the general business, industrial and agricultural life. I hope that in these planning authorities planning will become a vital element of our administration.
I suggest that these planning authorities, following the trend of views expressed by Deputy Clinton, should in all cases try to ensure that the views of all local organised groups will be obtained and listened to in the preparation of these plans so that all will be working to the one end which is greater prosperity and better usage of what we have at our disposal; so that the advice of all these people, in addition to the views of the members of our local authorities, will add up to the point where we are getting the best from the minds of all who are in any way interested in the development of the country as a whole.
I might add that while I was in the United States of America, I found that what you might call public participation in the whole development and planning programme was a feature which was developed to a pretty advanced degree and one which I think, in their set-up, was conducive to very much of their present re-development being made possible. In other words, the co-operation as well as the knowledge and know-how which they were able to obtain from these local development groups helped them to attain what they set out to attain, that is, re-development of blighted and broken-down areas. That is in a sense part of our problem here and just as it has been found in the United States to be of assistance to the authorities to have the public, and particularly public associations, participating, advising and giving of their best, the more help and assistance we can get from the greatest number of public organisations, the sooner will we reach the goal which this Bill has in view.
The provisions of the Bill have been the subject of criticism by a number of Deputies on the ground that people's right of appeal to the courts has been removed and reference was made to the position under existing Town and Country Planning Acts under which planned schemes could be the subject of appeals to the High Court and had also to be placed before each House of the Oireachtas. Two separate points are raised in that criticism. The first relates to the right of appeal to the High Court, given by Section 31 of the 1934 Act and also Section 5 of the 1939 Act. Careful examination of these sections will reveal that in fact they actually restrict the rights of citizens rather than give them something which it is now said we are taking away. There is inherent in our democracy a right of access to the courts but these sections. Section 31 of the 1934 Act, and Section 5 of the 1939 Act, limited the period within which recourse might be had to the court. The particular point in those two Acts was really a restriction rather than something we enjoyed to the full. We are not really doing what it was said we are trying to do, that is, taking away from the people something they have been enjoying. In actual fact, it was a restrictive clause inserted in those two Acts.
The second point made seems to imply that constitutional rights will be taken away. All members of the House will realise that no Department and no Minister in any Government has a Bill drafted which he is aware will wilfully take away, or attempt to take away, any constitutional rights. It should also be remembered that if in the drafting of a Bill—and I do not admit it is such in this Bill—such right were endangered, it still does not matter whether it goes through this House in that form because the law made in this House cannot take away a constitutional right. Nothing we can do by ordinary legislation can in fact take away a constitutional right which is enshrined in the Constitution, the procedure for changing which we all know, but we cannot do it here. The right of any citizen to the protection of the High Court will remain unimpaired. In other words, the rights of people under the Constitution cannot be abrogated by something we do in this House.
I should add that every action of the Minister or the planning authority will remain subject to restraint of the court, unless the action is both in accordance with the Constitution and the law as made by this House. In other words, the Minister and the local planning authority under this Bill will not be enabled to take away anything, or do anything, in respect of which the laws enacted by the House have not already given permission.
Therefore, we need have no fear, although it is natural enough in certain cases that fears might well be expressed, that we will lose any constitutional rights by reason of any section of the Bill or for that matter, any other Bill. Under the 1934 Act, there is an elaborate procedure laid down in connection with the adoption of a resolution to make a planning scheme. For one reason or another, many planning authorities had difficulty in following this procedure exactly and, because it might be very serious if at a later stage the resolution was invalidated, provision was included in the 1939 Act that if no owner of property applied to the High Court, within two months, for annulment, the resolution would thereafter be deemed to be valid for all purposes. Since the Bill provides no parallel to a planning resolution under the 1934 Act, there is no need to provide for any court application for annulment.
Section 31 of the 1934 Act enabled any person whose property was affected by a planning scheme to apply to the High Court within one month of the Minister's Order approving the planning scheme. On such application, the High Court could annul the scheme or part of the scheme if the scheme or part of the scheme contravened or was not authorised by or was not made in accordance with the Act. In other words, the court could not review the merits of the scheme or any provision in it and could only annul if the scheme were found to be ultra vires.
Up to now, the period allowed was only one month. If no application were made within the month and the Minister made an order appointing a day on Which the scheme was to come into force, the scheme would have statutory force and effect as from that day. If there was something really wrong about the procedure that we are now wiping out, if it were not found to be wrong until after a month had elapsed and the day appointed named, there was nothing thereafter anybody could do. This, in fact, is the misunderstood provision which has brought about criticism to the effect that we are taking something away. That was the restriction section which we had made available to the courts in the 1934 Act specifically, and under the 1939 Act partially.
While a development plan, which we have not been told about, is similar in some respects to a planning scheme, the vital difference between them is that the development plan does not purport to control or regulate development as does a planning scheme. It was necessary in the case of a planning scheme to ensure that its validity could not be challenged, once it had come into operation, and therefore a limited period only was allowed. In the case of development plans, in future any person may apply at any time to the courts for a ruling that it is ultra vires. In other words, there is no restriction of time within which, if a person finds there is something wrong about a proposal, he can make application to the courts. It was not necessary to incorporate any provision in the Bill for such an application, since there is no intention of limiting the time within which it may be made.
Reference has also been made to Section 53 of the 1934 Act which enabled application to be made to a district court to quash a notice of intention to exercise powers under Part VI of the Act. This part deals with a contravention of planning schemes and has never become effective, for the simple reason that no planning scheme has ever being brought into operation. In those circumstances, it is idle to say that existing rights of recourse to the courts are being taken away. Theoretically, in some way they may have existed but they were very restricted, and if they did exist at all, they could never have operated because the circumstances never obtained and I do not think they will ever obtain.
A planning scheme under the 1934 Act was a legislative rather than an administrative form of legislation and control. It was for this reason that provision could appropriately be made for laying it before the Oireachtas and for the making of applications to the district court to quash proceedings for enforcement. A planning scheme under that Act had the force and effect of law and was accordingly capable of judicial interpretation, but even so, Section 52 only enabled the district court to inquire into the question of whether circumstances existed enabling the responsible authority to exercise their power of enforcement.
The court also might consider whether there was, in fact, a contravention of a provision in a planning scheme but it was not enabled to consider the merits of the provision or of the scheme generally. In addition, as I have already explained in regard to the limited period for annulment, it was not open to the district court to consider, on an application under Section 52, whether the particular provision of the scheme was ultra vires.
The position in regard to the making of development plans under the present Bill is fundamentally no different from the position under the present law. If the development plan, in the opinion of any person, is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down, or if it exceeds what is empowered by law, an application may be made to the High Court for a declaration that the plan is ultra vires. Since the Bill does not limit the period within which an application may be made to quash a development plan, it will be appreciated that it is the intention to improve the position as compared with that which obtains in regard to a planning scheme under the 1934 Act. In other words, we are removing, and improving by so removing, the restriction on time within which application may be made to the High Court. In fact, there will not be any restriction on time in the future and that means that if anybody thinks or feels there is something wrong at any time, the passing of time will not have taken from him, as it would have under the 1934 and 1939 Acts, his right to go to the High Court seeking a declaration.
Appeals under Section 80 of the Bill from decisions of planning authorities will relate primarily to the administration of planning and to the policies associated therewith. In determining an appeal under Section 80, the Minister is not exercising a judicial function. The function is, in the main, an administrative function, but he must of course keep within the provisions of the law, and if he does not, if he steps outside those provisions in his dealing with those matters, then an appeal lies to the High Court on any such matter. Furthermore, if any question of law arises in relation to an appeal, there is provision in Section 80 for reference of that matter for decision by the High Court.
I should point out that Section 80 also provides for oral hearings, representing an improvement on the position in relation to the present system of determining appeals, which makes no specific provision for oral hearing. I feel sure that all the members of this House who have knowledge of the difficulties that are encountered in trying to make the best of an appeal case will agree that the oral hearing provision is a distinct improvement on the procedure in the past which, by and large, involved all written submissions.
The Minister is charged in this Bill with administering the planning law. Part of this duty is to ensure that the planning authorities, as distinct from the individual owners, will prepare their development plans and that they will decide on applications for development as they come up. The Minister also has the duty of determining appeals from decisions of the planning authorities. Again, might I emphasise, the Minister is not determining or interpreting law in regard to those functions put on him by the legislation.
Decisions made by planning authorities on application for planning permission are not isolated occurrences like offences which are normally dealt with by the criminal courts or which come up by way of civil actions in the district courts. Each of these cases involves an isolated occurrence which has no direct relation to a pattern of behaviour or administration. Decisions made by planning authorities under their planning powers must form part of a pattern and must accord with the policy of the planning authorities. There is, therefore, an immediate distinction between what is dealt with in the courts and what we propose to have dealt with by way of appeal to a Minister of State, in this case, planning appeals which must conform to the pattern or policy of a planning authority. Unless the courts are aware of this policy and of the administrative pattern, they cannot be the most appropriate authority to determine whether particular planning decisions should or should not be upheld.
The criticism of injuring an individual is not the ultimate criterion. In general, the common good, the development plan and the objectives which the planning authority have set themselves to achieve are the proper criteria. The Minister is in a position to determine whether the injury which a planning decision would involve for an individual would be out-weighed by the injury to the community or the loss to the community by a particular objective not being achieved. He must also consider the question as to whether or not money would be available to compensate for a decision adverse to private interest. A court could not investigate such a question. These are administrative matters which are best dealt with by administrative machinery.
Where an individual is injured by a decision, provision is made in appropriate cases for compensation. I would like to illustrate the meaning of what I am saying by reference to a typical appeal. For example, the developer proposes to erect a structure which would obstruct an important view or scenery which is of special attraction or interest, or would impede the future widening or a road, or would obstruct the creation of a public right-of-way to the seashore, or would obstruct the proper layout of an industrial estate. These are matters which are appropriate for decision in the first instance by the planning authority and by the Minister on appeal in relation to planning policy. I would like to emphasise that the planning authority in deciding applications for permission and the Minister in deciding appeals cannot do so in an arbitrary fashion. They are bound by specific restrictions in the Bill. I should also like to emphasise that the planning authority in deciding on a planning application must give reasons for their decision. The Minister also in deciding appeals must give his reasons for his decision. Where the reasons given for decisions are considered to be outside the scope or authority of the Act, it is open to any person aggrieved to appeal to the Courts, that is, to seek a declaration from the Court that the decision is ultra vires.
Therefore the court does remain as the protector of the interests of the aggrieved parties in all phases of this measure. The fact that the appeals are in an administrative way dealt with by the Minister does not take away from the fact that the Courts are still there as the final arbiter in matters of the interpretation of the law and to keep all of us from going outside the law in any decision that may be arrived at whether by the local authorities on an ordinary application or by the Minister on appeal from the decision of the local authorities.
It has also been suggested that there will under the Bill be so many appeals that the Minister will not be able to deal with each appeal personally and that the widow or any poor person will not get the same consideration as the larger concerns. I would like to assure the House that as I indicated in my opening statement on the Bill every appeal gets my personal attention and that an appeal in the terms of the simplest letter gets the same attention as appeals involving major issues and bigger concerns. I can give that assurance and I am certain that whoever will occupy the position of Minister for Local Government will act in the same manner if this measure becomes law.
Another allegation was made by Deputy Donegan that the Minister will tend to uphold the decisions of the planning authorities because of what is called "collusion" or "cohesion." A number of Deputies who spoke after him did not agree with him. I deprecate that suggestion that there is collusion of cohesion between the officials of the central department and the local department which would lead to a wrong decision. It is an interesting fact that even at the moment one-third of the appeals before the Department of Local Government under our present law have been upheld. In other words the local authorities have been held to be wrong in their original decisions in one-third of all the cases that have come to us on appeal. That is a fairly good indication to the Deputy and to the House that collusion does not exist and that if any such collusion did exist it certainly has not been influencing the decisions of the Ministers for Local Government down through the years.
Another point I would like to emphasise in relation to appeals is that no new principles are being introduced in this Bill. The local government code and indeed many other Acts involving the individual provide for appeals to Ministers. For instance, in the case of land acquisition proposals, an appeal lies to the Minister from any person who objects to the acquisition of his property by a local authority. An appeal lies to the courts on questions of law and the same will apply in relation to planning matters, with which we are concerned in this measure. There are many other instances also where appeals lie to the Minister and not the courts, except, again, on questions of law. That principle is preserved right down through all the situations where there are appeals to the Minister on various matters. In the last analysis, if there is a point of law or a question of law, subsequent to the appeal to the Minister, there is an appeal to the courts for determination of the law.
As I have already indicated in my Second Reading statement, the cost of appeals should be kept to a minimum from the point of view of the individual, the taxpayer and the ratepayer. It is my desire that the system of dealing with appeals should be as simple and inexpensive as possible, consistent with the fullest consideration being given to every individual case. I should again emphasise that I do not envisage a battery of senior counsel, junior counsel and solicitors being employed, or that it would be necessary to employ them, on every case that comes for oral hearing, which these hearings will be in the future.
If it so happens that one party to some disputed decision which is on appeal is in circumstances which enables him to employ such people to put his protestations for him, and to outline his case, and make the best possible case for him, and there is someone else, an aggrieved party with the opposite view who has not got the wherewithal, and cannot afford any such luxury of professional people to represent him and make his case, I can assure the House that due note will be taken of the fact that that person is appearing unaided, as it were. The side which may not be very well equipped with legal, architectural, engineering, professional, or what you will aid, will not lose the appeal and their interests in the appeal will not be overshadowed or overlooked by way of argument, because that argument was made and presented by professional people in a better way than the way in which a poor person might be able to present his case.
Deputy Jones and other Deputies took particular exception to the provisions of certain enforcement sections where the phrase "any other material considerations" occurs. I am examining this matter and I can say that I will do my best to try to meet the points made by the Deputies who raised them. Again, Deputy Jones, and I think also Deputy Tully, referred to the cost of planning, and expressed the hope that it will not be too great. That is the hope of all of us. At the same time, as I indicated in my Second Reading statement, what is important is to ensure that what is done is done well. It is not merely the cost that must be taken into consideration.
I should say that the planning authorities are not obliged by this Bill to go further than the circumstances of their finances will allow. I hope some of them do not read that too literally and decide that their finances do not allow them to go anywhere. I do not think we would go that far with them but, by and large, it will be taken in a reasonable way. That is what the position will be. It is not intended that we should be unreasonable in trying to get done what it is not possible to do financially or otherwise, but, at the same time, we are not likely to stand aside quietly and acquiesce in complete inactivity on the part of any local authority or planning authority which alleges that it cannot do anything because of the financial position it might find itself in. There is a remedy for a local authority which has reached that stage.
In contrast to that, Deputy Barry expressed a fear that there might be an inclination to be too niggardly. He mentioned cheeseparing. I hope that cheeseparing will not be allowed to obscure the need for proper planning. I sincerely hope it will not. I join with Deputy Barry in expressing that sentiment in regard to this very important matter.
In considering the question of cost, the local authorities should remember that the losses result from bad lay-out of areas and streets, and disposition of structures of various types. The waste of time, effort and money which can be attributable to road traffic congestion, underdevelopment of valuable land, particularly in the business and commercial quarters of central urban areas, lengthy and unsatisfactory lines of services and communications, is quite considerable and the saving which can result from the avoidance of those conditions and from the efficient functioning of towns and cities should be properly taken into account when assessing the cost of planning.
If we couple with that what I have already said, that we must see to it that what is done is well done, a huge saving from the national point of view and the local authority point of view can result from proper planning. If we take all that into account, we will find that what may appear to be a large sum that could be attributed to planning, as such, is not really so large, and that in fact what it will give by way of better functioning to the entire community services will far outweigh the amount that might have to be put up at the initial stages to bring about the better planned community we all hope for.
Deputy Corish referred to the position of local representatives. I must say that I am in considerable agreement with the Deputy's views on this matter. I think it is very important that local representatives should be aware of their powers under this Bill. The making of development plan is a reserved function and other activities in the Bill are also specifically reserved to the elected representatives. Quite apart from these specific provisions, it is, of course, open to the elected representatives to exercise their powers under the County Management Acts. They can, for instance, require a manager to keep them informed of any executive decisions which he proposes to take. Not very many local authorities, I think, have so required their manager to my knowledge. They may also require the manager to give any information they wish to have in regard to any executive function performed, or to be performed, by him and they can requisition the manager to exercise a function or to refrain from exercising a function.
Taking those safeguards in the existing law into consideration, and the reserved functions that have been and will be given to the local authorities in this context, there is no fear—at least, I have no fear—that the elected representatives will be left out of these matters and overlooked, or that their powers will be in any way lessened or taken from them. In fact, if I had any such fear, I would go to any lengths to ensure that such did not come about. I am satisfied, however, that with the provisions in this Bill, plus the safeguards that already exist, such will not be the case.
Deputy Barry, Deputy Tully and Deputy Gallagher referred to the amenity problems which exist and the need for powers to control developments which disfigure the seaside or other scenic areas. I hope that these powers will be exercised in the interests not alone of the tourists but of our own citizens as well.
Deputy Donegan went to some lengths to make a case for allowing landowners to permit the erection of hoardings, provided that good scenery or views were not affected. If Deputy Donegan had taken a second, and even a third, look at the Bill, he would have seen that it provides specifically that in dealing with applications for planning permission, which, of course, would include applications for permission to erect advertisement hoardings, the planning authority is restricted to considering certain specific matters. Similarly, the Minister, if there is an appeal from a decision of the planning authority, is restricted also to considering certain matters. There is no foundation whatever for the view that developments which are not obnoxious and do not offend the provisions of the Bill with regard to amenity will be automatically refused permission. That was, I think, the note he struck; certain things would be wiped out by virtue of the passage of this Bill, without any consideration being given to the merits of any individual case. That is not so. From the general tenor of the debate, I think Deputies generally recognise that advertising hoardings can be a source of disfigurement.
Hear, hear!
That is particularly true in relation to our scenic areas. I want it to be quite clear that I shall not shoot down these hoardings as if they were sitting ducks. Every case will be considered on its merits. Some of them have merit. Unfortunately, too many hoardings have been erected which result only in disfigurement, particularly in these scenic areas to which I have referred. It is the indiscriminate and widespread advertising hoardings we want to control, and these will be controlled under this measure.
Outdoor advertising is, of course, a form of commercial activity of long standing. It is not something new, but there is certainly a great deal more of it today than there was in the past. Such advertising can add life and colour to townscapes. This is particularly true if illuminated advertising at night. Planning seeks to secure that outdoor advertisements are not placed indiscriminately but are well designed and well located. Those engaged in the advertising industry are generally in agreement that there should be control and that there should be enforcement of that control. They welcome these provisions, even though they may in some cases weigh heavily upon those concerned. They agree with us that advertising hoardings, if properly designed, can enhance a vista or, in some cases, not do very much damage to the scene. They also agree that badly-kept, badly designed, and badly-placed hoardings can be the ruination of some of our best scenic vistas. I believe we shall have the full co-operation of those engaged in this business. That co-operation will naturally make our job, whether at local authority or ministerial level, so much easier; the easier it is made, the better the job will be done in the interests of all concerned.
Deputy Tully and Deputy Crinion referred to the problem of badly-kept hoardings. The Department and the various local authorities recognise that this is a problem and specific provisions are made in the Bill to require badly-kept hoardings to be tidied up and put into good repair. This should solve the problem of some of the worst of these hoardings at the moment. They will either disappear altogether or be put into proper order.
I should like at this stage to thank the various bodies, associations and individuals who sent in comments on the Bill. All the suggestions I have received from these public-spirited citizens are being considered.
Deputy Barrett objected to the powers contained in the Bill which enable the Minister to require the planning authority to vary a plan. The Deputy, I think, misunderstands the provisions. The purpose of the provisions stems from the fact that the Minister will not formally approve the development plans. Since he will not formally approve, the question might be asked as to how then any degree of national uniformity will be achieved as between the various planning authorities. It is an order to achieve uniformity that the power to vary is being inserted in the Bill, so that plans can be brought into line by the Minister, who, while not approving in a formal way, will look through the plans and, if he finds something sticking out like a sore thumb as between one planning authority and another, he can ask the local authority concerned to vary the plan and bring it into line. Where uniformity will be of the essence is in the matter of regional or national planning. We shall have to have regard in this particular to arterial roads, water and sewerage schemes, the regional planning of industry, amenity area orders, national planning, and so on. If the Minister did not have power to vary, such uniformity as we all desire would not be possible at all.
Debate adjourned.