Clause 2.—(GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.) (Hansard, 24 March 1959)

§ Mr. Bevins
I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember that at an 1160 earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill he took the opportunity of pointing out that Clause 2 (5) failed to make clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1).

Hon. Members
Why?

§ Mr. Brooke
When moving the first of the new Clauses, I referred to three Amendments which were linked with it, and I think that I explained all of them at that time.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Perhaps I may be allowed to express our grateful thanks, not for the way in which the Amendment to line 26 was moved, but for the substance of it.

§ Mr. Bevins
I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end to insert: as being development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted: Provided that if, in any such certificate, it is indicated that, in the opinion of the authority issuing the certificate, any such planning permission would only have been granted—

(a) subject to conditions specified in the certificate, or

(b) at a future time so specified, or

(c) both subject to conditions so specified and at a future time so specified,
the assumption shall be that planning permission for development of that class would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, but would only be granted subject to those conditions, or at that future time, or both subject to those conditions and at that future time, as the case may be". As I was saying, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out at an earlier stage that Clause 2 (5) did not make it clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it. Later, Clause 4 (5) was amended to allow a certificate to be issued on a deferred basis. The Amendment makes it possible for planning permission, which is assumed under Clause 1161 2 (5) by reference to a certificate, to be conditional or deferred if that is specified in the certificate. I hope that that will commend itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Mr. MacColl
I express my doubts about this matter not only in regard to the certificate but also in regard to the same point that arises in connection with the Amendment to Clause 3, page 5, line 31; at the end to insert: and (b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted. which is another case where the concept of a future permission is being introduced into the Bill. Certainly, that case and, I suspect, this one also are the result of concessions that were made on Clause 4 under pressure from the back benches of the party opposite in Committee.
I have never been happy about this use of future planning permission. As I ventured to point out upstairs, in the 1954 Act it was made perfectly clear that permission which was post-dated could not be given. In other words, if it was not an immediate permission, the correct procedure was to refuse the permission on the ground that it was premature. It seems to me to be dangerous to start compensating people for what is supposed to be market value on a speculation about a permission that will happen anything up to twenty years ahead—which was the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman.
One sees the difficulties in which a planning authority will be placed, because it will be asked what are the prospects of development in twenty years' time. That would be an extremely difficult question to answer. It may well depend upon activities by the planning authority itself. The development of public services—of transport, drainage or whatever it may be—might appear to make it possible that development will take place a fairly long time ahead. Therefore, the planning authority would have to say, "Yes, as far as we can tell, we would give permission at a future 1162 time for this development." That would go to inflate the market price, but at the same time, the only circumstances in which the planning authority would be able to give the permission would be if already it or some other public authority had indulged in activity which had increased the value of the land.
In other words, our old friend betterment is creeping in again to haunt us. What is being presented to the vendor of the land is uncovenanted betterment, which is extremely speculative. It is not even betterment which has taken place, but betterment which might take place in the future should certain hypothetical circumstances occur. This places a difficult decision on the planning authority and presents difficulties to the valuer. One thing that we can be sure about is that it will present a nice little bonus to the property owner. Therefore, I regard it with considerable suspicion.