I shall respond to Amendment No. 200. We have already made it clear in Clause 36(2) that new resurfacing works are covered by the controls on works because they prevent or impede access to the surface of the land. We think that providing that ploughing or any other disturbance of the surface should also be covered goes just a little too far. The existing controls in Section 194 relate to fencing or the construction of works. By and large we consider that this remains the correct approach. Ploughing has never been regarded as ““works”” for the purpose of existing controls. Moreover, I remind the noble Lord that the consent granted under Clause 36 merely prevents works being unlawful under the clause and does not override the private rights either of commoners or of landowners. Regardless of whether works require or have been granted consent under Clause 36, a commoner might be able to bring an action in the courts against an owner or third party who has carried out works which prevent the exercise of his rights of common.
I turn now to Amendment No. 200A, which provides that all mining and quarrying operations should be added to the list. First, the amendment is unnecessary because Clause 36(3) is intended only to illustrate the types of work which may fall within the controls. Hence the reference to fencing, structures and so forth. Secondly, the amendment is unnecessary because the clause as drafted already covers works that prevent or impede access which are undertaken in relation to quarrying, mining and the electricity distribution network. Finally, it is not clear how the second part of the amendment relating to telecommunications equipment would work, given that Clause 36(6) exempts electronic communications apparatus from the controls on works.
Two government amendments are included in this group. They are technical in nature. Amendment No. 199 makes a very minor change to the wording of Clause 36(3) which gives examples of the type of works that may require consent under Clause 36(2)(a). Amendment No. 201 relates to applications for works on commons in London boroughs. Unless noble Lords want to know more about them, that is all I shall say.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c248-9GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:24:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276014
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276014
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276014