HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc962-4

In page 28, line 18, leave out from "which" to second "or" in line 19, and insert: consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land,

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 12, leave out "ten" and insert "seven."

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment is proposed in pursuance of an undertaking which was given in another place. It seeks to cut down the period during which an owner is prevented from building without compensation from ten to seven years. It is intended to deal with a relatively small number of cases in which it is thought that the land, although suitable for development, should not be developed in the light of development plans or the availability—or, perhaps I should say the non-availability—of certain services. The Amendment seeks to defer development in such cases. It is not thought that there will be many cases of this kind, particularly in Scotland, but this undertaking was given.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I imagine that this reduction from ten to seven years is not only going to cause an embarrassing situation for local authorities, but may well lead to a serious situation. Many of the development plans submitted by local authorities indicate certain priorities; indeed, the Minister is aware that the Glasgow plan envisages a period covering not seven, or even 10 years, but 50 years; and in such circumstances, what is the position of the local authority?

Let us assume that there is an applicant with a typical application, who comes along with an established claim and who wants to develop an area. But, that area happens to be one which will not be developed for the next 20 years by the local authority. Under the suggested Amendment, compensation can only be excluded up to a seven-year period. What is then the position of the local authority? Can it refuse, after reviewing the situation, to permit development, or must it allow it to proceed at the expiration of the seven years?

Surely it was quite legitimate, prior to the appearance of this Amendment, for a local planning authority to say to an applicant that it would be at least 10 years before it could give any clear indication as to the lay out of a specific area? We cannot tell, even at this stage, what the road patterns are going to be, or where the other services are going to be provided, such as water and sewerage. We are not in a position even to say at this stage whether or not the proposed developer's form of construction will fit into the general amenity of the area.

It seems to me that if we are going to limit the exclusion of compensation to a period of seven years, we are not going to engage in planning at all. We are just going to have a form of sporadic development. I should like the Minister to indicate to us clearly how the local authorities stand under the proposed Amendment. Are they to be tied definitely to seven years, and thereafter must they allow development to take place, or will they be given power to indicate to the intending applicant that the situation has been reviewed but that development cannot be allowed for another three, four or five years, to meet local circumstances? Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position.

The Lord Advocate

The position is as the hon. Gentleman says. The reason the Amendment has been put down is that it is unreasonable to say to an intending purchaser that he should wait indefinitely. If—and this is the point that the hon. Gentleman was really making—the local planning authority refuses permission to develop after the seven years, then compensation is paid by the Exchequer, not by the planning authority.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]