HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc912-4

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert: (4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by a pledge of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

  1. (a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and
  2. (b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,
shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—
  1. (i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;
  2. (ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:
Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was pledged in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question.

The Solicitor-General

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

The House will appreciate that it is proposed to make certain Amendments to the Second Schedule relating to pledged holdings. The purpose is to aggregate them in order to simplify the calculations involved. As Clause 49 (4) provides for the corresponding discharge of liability for development charge, some changes are necessary in this Clause, and it is for that purpose that the Amendment is moved.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

The Amendment appears to contain a number of rather complicated provisions, and I think that it at least warrants the passing attention of the House. As I understand it, we are dealing with the case of the owner with interest who has incurred liability for development charge under the 1947 Act, and has pledged his claim holding to the Central Land Board against his development charge. The amount of the claim holding pledged is to be deducted from the balance of development charge due.

Up to that point, one can understand the position, but a difficulty appears to arise in the case of a claim holding which is divided into different parcels and where the whole of the value of the claim holding comprising all these parcels has been pledged against the advance payment of development charge in respect of the development of one of the pieces of land comprising the claim holding.

9.45 p.m.

I can understand the desirability of that. I can understand that, if the whole of the claim holding was pledged against the development charge levied in respect of the development of one part of the claim holding, the consequence of that might be a loss on the part of the Central Land Board, and, consequently, a very much greater payment would have to be made by it when eventually permission was sought for the development of the other parcels of land within the claim holding at a subsequent date.

It is a difficult point, but I cannot help thinking that it is a pity to rush through it, and if any further explanation of it could be offered to the House, it would be appreciated. I see nothing in the Lords Amendment which is open to objection on this side of the House, but if the matter could be explained a little more fully, it would be appreciated.

The Solicitor-General

If I may reply, by leave of the House, I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has in mind the context of the provision made by another Amendment from another place. When plot A has been developed and plot B has not been developed, and when the developed plot was not pledged and the undeveloped plot was pledged, there is provision, by an Amendment to which we shall come later—it is in page 91, line 28—which really gets the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty. We shall come to that Amendment later, and, subject to that, I hope that the House does not require any further explanation.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 59, line 39, leave out "subsections (2) and" and insert "subsection."

In line 42, after "section" insert: except in subsection (4) thereof.