HC Deb 07 July 1947 vol 439 cc1973-5
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in page 84, line 36, to leave out from "has," to end of line 42, and to insert: otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the refusal or conditions, that authority shall pay to the applicant compensation equal to that expenditure, loss or damage. The Government have accepted what seems to us to be an identical Amendment on Clause 19, line 44, on page 21. It does not seem at all clear to us why they should accept a similar Amend- ment in the case of Clause 19, but apparently they have not accepted this Amendment which we now propose. The only difference between Clause 19 and Clause 74 is that Clause 19 applies after the appointed day and the Clause we are now considering applies before the appointed day. In order to get an explanation of this apparently inconsistent procedure, I move this Amendment.

Sir W. Darling

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Westwood

It is true that the position in Clause 19 is different from that in Clause 74. Clause 19 deals with the revocation and modification of planning conditions after the Bill becomes law, whereas Clause 74 deals with uncompleted developments begun under the existing law. Clause 74 continues the existing law in relation to those developments for a further period of six months under the existing law where permission is granted, or a planning scheme is revoked or modified by a subsequent scheme and the developer gets, broadly speaking, compensation in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out work which is rendered abortive in respect of any liability for the abandonment of a contract of work; and similarly, where planning permission is granted under an interim development order prior to the nth November, 1943, and that as the date of the Town and Country Planning Interim Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, is revoked, the existing law allows compensation on the same basis as Clause 74.

12.30 a.m.

I suggest that there is no justification for having compensation on a wider basis. Where a building was erected or begun when no planning control was in operation the owner should have applied under the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943, for permission for the completion of development. If he was refused permission under that Act, compensation would have been payable on precisely the same basis as under Clause 74. On the other hand, if the developer failed to apply for permission after the Act of 1943 was passed, but continued to complete his building and incur expense, as in the ordering of plant or machinery, it would clearly be unreasonable to expect the local planning authority to compensate him, as the loss would have been due to the neglect of the developer. In these circumstances, I suggest that the Amendment is unjustified and could not possibly be accepted.

Amendment negatived.