§ 49. Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the amount to be paid for the balance of 13.4 acres required for the Cromwell Road extension, the first 36.6 acres having cost £750,000, or approximately £20,000 per acre.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAbout £1¼ million including compensation for disturbance and other costs.
§ Mr. StokesCan the right hon. Gentleman say how much the land acquisition is separately? In the answer which the Minister gave a short time ago it was given separately and worked out as in the Question. Now, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is afraid to tell us what the facts are.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the right hon. Member studied the answers he would see that I have given all the facts.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonIs the Minister aware that road development schemes in Central London have been delayed for so long that the cost of land acquisition has inevitably increased? Will he see that no consideration will deter him from pressing 2072 ahead with those urgent schemes as quickly as possible?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI cannot go as far as that, but the fact that we are proceeding with a number of major schemes in London should reassure the hon. Member.
§ 50. Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the 146 square yards of land required for widening Piccadilly, costing £20,800, works out at £686,400 per acre; to whom the purchase price was paid; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid paying similar sums elsewhere for road widening.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe London County Council now tell me that the area involved is 167 square yards. The land is at present owned by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The answer to the third part of the Question is, "None Sir."
§ Mr. StokesDoes not the Minister think this is a perfectly absurd price to pay even for 167 square yards, which works out at about £686,000 an acre, or £16 a square foot? Surely that is an outrageous price to pay even to the Commissioners of Crown Lands?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf one compulsorily takes other people's property, I think it is reasonable to pay compensation which has some relation to its value.
§ Mr. StokesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners of Crown Lands did nothing whatsoever to create the value of this site? Why should the public be made to pay through the nose whenever they want to get a piece of land back for their own use?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterOf course I would not accept the implication in the question of the right hon. Member that it is right compulsorily to take property at prices far below the real value of that property.
§ Mr. C. WilliamsIs my right hon. Friend aware that the late Socialist Government allowed these things to go on?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThat would seem a very good argument against our doing so.
§ Mr. ShinwellAre we to understand that the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman applies not only in the case of the Commissioners of Crown Lands but also in the case of small holders of land who are dispossessed?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterSo far as I know, in connection with the acquisition of land for the purpose with which I am concerned it does not make any difference whether the owner is the Commissioners of Crown Lands or an individual landowner, large or small.
Mr. I. O. ThomasWould the right hon. Gentleman indicate if in any case where the cost is considered excessive steps are taken, or can be taken, for reference to an impartial tribunal?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe basis of valuation and for settling disputes which may arise is laid down in the statute passed by Parliament a little time ago.