HC Deb 23 March 1959 vol 602 cc1066-9

(1) The provision of this section shall have effect for enabling compensation to be claimed in respect of planning decisions made after the commencement of this Act whereby permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies is refused or is granted subject to conditions.

(2) This section shall apply to land to which the provisions of section eighty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, applied provided such land was in the same ownership continuously from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to the date of the planning decision.

(3) The provisions of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1954, shall apply to land qualified under this section subject to the following:— (a) For the purposes of section seventeen of the Act of 1954 land qualified under this section shall have an unexpended balance of established development value provided such land would have established a claim for loss of development value in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act of 1947 but for the provisions of subsection (2) of section eighty-five of the Act of 1947 and such unexpended balance of established development value shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1947 and 1954.

(4) Any dispute as to the determination of the unexpended balance of established development value and or of the amount of compensation payable under this section shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal.—[Mr. Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Page

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Clause does not deal with compensation for compulsory purchase. It relates to compensation for refusal of planning permission, and refusal to a certain special class—land held on charitable trusts. When planning permission is refused, the claim is for the unexpended balance of the established development value. But charities were never allowed to establish a development value, and, therefore, their claim is that much the less. That seems obviously unfair and unjust to charities owning land on charitable trusts. The Clause is an endeavour to remedy that injustice.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

On a point of order. Is this provision within the scope of the Bill and the scope of the Money Resolution? It relates entirely to refusals of planning permission, and while not saying that I disagree with the hon. Member's intentions in the matter—there is no doubt a good deal to be said for them—I wonder whether this subject comes within the scope of the Bill and within the scope of the Money Resolution. Nowhere else in the Bill is there any reference to compensation in respect of refusal of planning permission. Indeed, a criticism of the Bill has been that it did not deal with that matter and left it as it is at present while dealing with the general question of compensation. It would seem that if it were to be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with in a more comprehensive way than under the hon. Member's lone and belated new Clause.

Mr. Page

It is not a lone and belated new Clause. I had put down this provision for the Committee stage, but out of consideration for hon. Members I did not move it at that time. I am sure that it comes fully within the Title of the Bill. It is true that the rest of the Bill does not include anything to do with compensation for refusal of planning permission, but that is no reason why it should not be introduced. Although I have put the case in a very short argument because of the hour, I urge that the provision comes within the scope of the Title and the Money Resolution.

Mr. Mitchison

May we have an answer, Sir Gordon?

The Deputy-Chairman

I understand that it is in order.

Mr. Bevins

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, this new Clause has nothing to do with compensation for compulsory purchase, nor is it related to the other provisions of the Bill. It is concerned solely with the question of compensation for planning restrictions.

As my hon. Friend said, under Section 85 of the 1947 Act no claim could be made under Part VI of that Act for loss of development against the £300 million fund in respect of what is known as "functional land" of a charity, but, on the other hand, no development charge was payable for the purposes of the charity. As no claims could be made against the fund, there were no unexpended balances from which compensation could be paid under the 1954 Act when planning permission was refused, or granted subject to conditions.

The new Clause is intended to create unexpended balances in such cases from which compensation would be payable only to the charity. This matter was fully discussed when the 1954 legislation was before the House. The then Minister of Housing explained that the position of charities had not been made the worse by either the 1953 or the 1954 legislation.

As was explained at the time, there was a further objection, which applies to this new Clause, against the proposal to set up an unexpended balance equal to the claim which might have been established. In many cases it would be impossible to ascertain the amount of the claim, because the claim represented the difference between the unrestricted market value of the land and the value of the land restricted to its existing use. Existing use value of functional land, such as a church or charity, is sometimes quite incapable of assessment by reference to the open market.

It was largely for that reason that charities were given exceptional treatment in the 1947 Act, because functional land could not very well be brought within the financial provisions of that Act. Clearly, what was thought to be undesirable in 1947 would be wrong at this point, and even more formidable were it to be done retrospectively, which is the purpose of the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.