HC Deb 24 March 1959 vol 602 cc1139-57
(1) For the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, such one or more of the assumptions mentioned in sections two and three of this Act as are applicable to the relevant land or any part thereof shall be made in ascertaining the value of the relevant interest.
(2) Any planning permission which, in accordance with any of the provisions of those sections, is to be assumed as therein mentioned is in addition to any planning permission which may already be in force at the date of service of the notice to treat.
(3) Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed; but, in determining whether planning permission for any development could in any particular circumstances reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, regard shall be had to any contrary opinion expressed in relation to that land in any certificate issued under the following provisions of this Part of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted
(a) unconditionally or subject to conditions, or
(b) in respect of the land in question taken by itself or in respect of an area including that land, or
(c) on an ordinary application or on an outline application or by virtue of a development order,
or is planning permission which, in accordance with any direction or provision given or made by or under any enactment, is deemed to have been granted.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke)

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

This new Clause, which makes possible the recasting of some parts of the Bill, is designed to be inserted after Clause I to form an introduction to the succeeding Clauses, which deal with assumptions about planning permission. In the Standing Committee, the hon. Members for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Acton (Mr. Sparks) drew attention to certain comments made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. One of the purposes of the proposed new Clause is to deal with the material point that the Institution raised.

Perhaps I might quote from a memorandum which was sent by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to all hon. Members, I believe, and certainly to those who served on the Standing Committee. It said: It is widely believed—and there is a danger that the legislation might he so construed—that the land will be valued for the specified uses, and for those uses, only, which are in fact permitted or assumed to be permitted. But the market would not necessarily limit its price to the value of the land for such specific uses; the market would have regard to all the potentialities and disabilities of the land, but with the knowledge that certain developments would definitely be permitted. The Institution believes that this is the basis on which 'market value' is intended to be assessed under the Bill, and that the making of certain specific assumptions does not exclude from account other types of development to which the market would have regard. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be made clear in the Bill that this is its effect. In Standing Committee, when attention was drawn by two hon. Members opposite to this matter, I undertook to consider, before the Report stage, whether anything was needed to remove any possible doubts. We came to that in subsection (3) of the new Clause.

If I may, I shall take the House quickly through the various subsections. Subsection (1) will be recognised as the existing subsection (1) of Clause 2 with one very minor amendment. Associated with this new Clause are certain Amendments which perhaps could be examined at the same time. The Amendment in my name to Clause 2, page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1), is closely associated with subsection (1) of this new Clause, which replaces the old subsection. Subsection (2) of the new Clause makes it clear that assumed planning permissions are in addition to existing planning permissions. Previously, the Government have rested on the argument that the removal of the restrictive provisions in the 1947 Act was a sufficient indication that, in future, existing planning permissions would form part of market value. This subsection (2) puts that matter beyond doubt.

Subsection (3), as I have mentioned, meets the point raised by the Royal Institution. In addition, subsection (3) provides that the contents of a certificate which may be issued under subsection (4, b) of Clause (4) can be used to counter what I might call an over-optimistic view of the potentialities of the land which the market might otherwise entertain. Subsection (4) replaces with certain amendments the later part of subsection (6) of Clause 2. That is associated with the Amendment in my name to page 3, line 40, to leave out subsection (6).

The earlier part of the existing subsection (6) of Clause 2, which, as I say, is being left out, refers to permissions which do not inure for the benefit of the land and is transferred by the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert: (3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein. That would provide a new subsection (3) to Clause 2.

I think that it will be found that with this new Clause and the accompanying Amendments which, as it were, clear the decks for it, these early Clauses will read more clearly and more logically. That certainly is the intention of the Government. There is no idea in the mind of the Government, in moving this new Clause, to make any material change from the Bill as it was considered by the Standing Committee, but simply to meet the point made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, apart from that, somewhat to clarify the arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, at the end to insert: but regard shall he had to the extent to which it is probable that any planning permission, which by virtue of the said sections two and three it is assumed would be granted, would in fact he applied for or exercised, and no account shall be taken of any such planning permission which is inconsistent with and less likely to he exercised than another such planning permission".

Mr. Speaker

Could the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) discuss this Amendment with the next two Amendments, in line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "in" in line 12, and in line 12, at the end to insert: for the purpose of any of those provisions"?

Mr. Mitchison

If you please, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be convenient to do so.

I can deal with this matter quite shortly. We regret that the Minister found himself unable to accept an Amendment moved yesterday which would have had the effect of leaving a great deal more to the judgment and experience of surveyors. In rejecting it he told us in his own words that the Government said: Let us have exact rules throughout, so that everybody may know where he stands. Accordingly, we look at what he now proposes to see how far that conforms with his own standard. The first comment I have to make is that it is not merely a question of what planning permissions are to be assumed, but of how those assumptions are to be treated. That, I think, is recognised by the general tenor of this new Clause.

We on our side recognise that unless we could have something like the Amendment which was rejected yesterday something of this sort is an improvement in the Bill. On the other hand, when we look at the terms proposed we find some things to object to in them. The first is that there is nothing said for the guidance of valuers about the weight to be attached to the various permissions. If we are to have a set of rules to govern the whole matter there should be some reference to the element of probability which will come into it. We had the impression during our Committee discussions that what the right hon. Gentleman was putting before the valuers was a market composed on the one side of the willing seller who is mentioned in the second of the rules in the 1919 Act and, on the other side, not of a single buyer, but of a whole stream of buyers.

In some cases that might be the position, but if we are simply to direct people to guide themselves entirely by assumed planning permissions and if, in fact, we are to have exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands, one cannot know where he stands unless the valuers are directed in some form or another to take the element of probability into account. That is what we seek to do by the few words we wish to introduce at the end of line 8.

Similarly, when we come to a conflict between planning permissions, it seems that if the valuer is to assess the matter rightly, having decided which value is the more probable, he can attach weight to them. He cannot give effect, at the same time, to a number of hypothetical planning permissions—for these are all hypothetical planning permissions—if they are inconsistent one with another. There must be some direction given to him in the matter. That is what we suggest in the first Amendment.

The Amendment suggested to line 9—the one to line 12 is a drafting Amendment—raises a slightly different point. We are told, in the new Clause, that Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed". What by now has happened to the exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands? I am quoting the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday on the same matter. … one would think that the only fair thing to do would be to state clearly what permissions it should be assumed he would have obtained. If, in addition to the permissions we have stated clearly, we open the door to any other permissions which the valuer may think appropriate we are going either back to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman refused yesterday, or making nonsense of the suggestion that these are exact rules throughout.

Lastly, if I may give the right hon. Gentleman one more quotation from himself, still on the same point he said: It is for these reasons that the Government feel"— this is a peroration, by the way— … that they must, in these early Clauses of the Bill, lay down a set of rules which will guide valuers as to the kind of planning permissions they are to assume when land is being compulsorily purchased, and is not changing hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 925–9.] If one first lays down a collection of assumed permissions and then says that there is nothing whatever to prevent one assuming some other permissions, one is not doing what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government must do.

Short of a more satisfactory explanation, we cordially dislike that phrase. We feel that it opens the door, and once again opens it in one direction. Whenever the door is opened, it appears to be so that the man whose land is compulsorily acquired should receive more than the ordinary open market value and that the acquiring authority should pay rather more.

We had the impression all through, and it persists in relation to the new Clause, and particularly to the phrase I have mentioned, that, whatever may be said about the intention to arrive at an open market value, not only does the right hon. Gentleman lean in every case against the acquiring authority, but he adds additional provisions which, instead of arriving at the open market value, mean that the acquiring authority and the ratepayers who stand behind the acquiring authority, or in other cases the taxpayers, will be unduly penalised.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I beg to second the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I was hoping that we should have a reply from the Minister. I want to intervene briefly to support the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

We are dealing with a highly technical subject. In the new Clause moved by the Minister the House is being asked to legislate that certain assumptions should be made about planning permission for the purpose of the assessment of compensation which local authorities will have to pay.

There is very great force in what my hon. and learned Friend said. If we are to embark upon the kind of provision that assumptions should be made by the surveyors and valuers who will have to decide the amount of compensation, it seems to me to be not merely entirely reasonable, but essential, that a direction should be given to them that they should have regard to the kind of planning permission which is probable and that they should disregard, or in other words take no account of, any possible planning permission which would be inconsistent with, and less likely to be exercised than, that planning permission.

In dealing with the Bill we are all anxious to see that justice is done as between owners of property and the local authorities who will have to pay compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of property. In the Bill a great deal depends upon the kind of planning permission to be anticipated. One cannot be dogmatic about it. Therefore, one must make certain assumptions. If we are now, as the Minister concedes, embarking upon legislation which makes certain assumptions about the planning permission which will be allowed, it follows that we must deal with it comprehensively.

If we are to deal with it comprehensively, we should incorporate in the new Clause the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend and should make perfectly clear what surveyors have to take into account and what they have to disregard. If justice is to be done, it is essential that these words should be added to the new Clause. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke

There are two separate, but related, points. I will address myself first to the Amendment that has actually been moved. I listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and it seemed to me that the old erronious thought was creeping in that, because planning permissions are cumulative, values based on planning permissions are also cumulative.

That is not the case. Several planning permissions may, as we all know, exist in relation to a piece of land. The granting of a fresh planning permission in no way limits the right to develop in accordance with any of the other planning permissions still in force. When land is valued, the valuer does not add up cumulatively the separate values which the land might have for each of the purposes for which planning permission is available and arrive at a sum total. The market has regard to all the planning permissions available, but the price in the market will be what the land is worth for the most valuable form of development among them. However many planning permissions there are for less valuable forms of development, that will not add anything to the price and will not raise the value of the land.

It is rather as if a number of coins were put in front of somebody and he was told that he could choose any one he wished. Obviously, under those conditions he would choose the coin of highest value. If there was a half crown among them, he would choose the half crown. However many halfpennies, pennies and sixpences were added to the pile, he would still choose the half crown and he would still not take anything more than a half crown, because he would be permitted to take only one of the coins.

The question which form of development will bring the highest price is in every individual case decided by reference to the circumstances of the individual site. It will depend on the size and shape of the land, on its situation, on the services available and on the demand which may exist in the area for land for that purpose.

Taking the country at large, land for which there is planning permission for industrial development normally commands a higher price than land for which there is no planning permission for industry, but for which there is planning permission for housing development. While that is true for the country at large, nevertheless there are some areas where it is not true. In areas where there is practically no demand for industrial land and nobody wants it, planning permission for industrial use has very little value. Normally, in such a case, if there were a demand for residential accommodation, planning permission for housing would give the land a greater value than any planning permission for industrial use.

Therefore, what it amounts to is that the likelihood of any planning permission being applied for or exercised is already taken into account in assessing market value. There is no need for the additional complications which the first Amendment would introduce. It certainly would not reduce the compensation payable, as I think the hon. and learned Member may have had in mind. It would add a complication to the Bill—and I submit to the House a needless complication—and, as the Opposition have already said that this Clause may be somewhat bewildering, I can only say that, if anything, any bewilderment would be increased should words like these be written into the Bill.

The hon. Member referred, at the same time, to the second and third Amendments—as he said, the third is a purely drafting Amendment. Their main purpose is to delete the opening words of subsection (3) and, indeed, to fly in the face of the advice that we have all received from so respected a body as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I take it that the Opposition's argument is that, as it stands in the new Clause, subsection (3) might give too much encouragement to valuers to assume that there is something else that they might take into account.

I assure the House that this criticism will not be justified, more particularly in view of the second part of the subsection, to which I specifically referred when I moved the new Clause. All that the subsection does is to ensure that the valuer will be able to do what he normally does in assessing market values; that is to say, to take into account all the potentialities and, of course, all the disadvantages that the land might have.

If the Amendment were accepted, that would be left open to doubt. Indeed, as it seems to me, the Bill would be back in the state in which it was when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors criti- cised it. That criticism appeared to be valid—it was certainly supported in Committee by hon. Members—and the Government have addressed themselves to putting the matter beyond all doubt. I have no doubt at all that the new Clause as it stands is more likely to enable a valuer to arrive at a figure that is the true market value of the land in the open market than it would be if this Amendment to leave out part of subsection (3) were accepted.

Mr. Mitchison

That was a magnificently contradictory answer. In his reply to the second Amendment, the Minister explained that it was advisable to make clear that valuers could do what they normally would. In dealing with the first group of Amendments, where exactly the same state of affairs seems to me to prevail, he objected to its being made clear that they could do what the normally would. He should reconcile his attitudes to the two points raised.

Moreover, on the first Amendment—which is, perhaps, the more important—he told us, first, that if one had to choose between a number of coins, one would take the most valuable. He then explained that this would apply, for instance, to industrial use and to use for building houses; but that it did not follow that one would attach much importance to the more valuable use—in his own simile, the more valuable coin—in cases where it was unlikely that that use would come into being.

The right hon. Gentleman will himself see that instead of taking the analogy of a number of coins he should have taken the analogy of a number of Premium Savings Bonds. Let us suppose that there is one Premium Bond of £100, the chance of winning which was dependent on a single draw, and that there was another of £10 that one might get on any of not 10 but 11 draws. A sensible man would take the £10 bond rather than the £100 Premium bond for he would have a better chance of making some money.

That is exactly our point in the first Amendment. If the Minister says, in effect, that the valuers would do it in any case, then—apart from drawing attention to the contradiction that he has just enunciated, which is exactly the opposite to his reply to the first point — I repeat that the danger of setting out in a Statute a whole series of extremely complicated assumptions is that valuers may think that that is the end of the matter, and they will be led into that erroneous conclusion by the right hon. Gentleman's own words, which I have just quoted and will not repeat.

The Minister quite clearly stated yesterday that this was to be a comprehensive set of rules. Accordingly, if there is something not in those rules, valuers may be tempted to look at his remarks and say, "True, we should have attended to that in normal practice, but we need not do so now because the Minister himself told us that we need not look beyond the rules." It is for that reason that in this general Clause, which is to cover the application of the whole set of rules, we think it desirable—indeed, necessary — that this particular and, if I may say so, very obvious matter should be stated.

There is no real dispute that the valuer would have to do it, but the right hon. Gentleman objects, for some reason, to stating it. We do not think that a good reason. We feel that there is a very real danger that if the Minister is allowed to persist in that attitude, an injustice that he might not intend may result.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I should like further information on the application of subsection (3) of the new Clause. In our discussions yesterday about floating value, the Minister apprehended that I and other hon. Members are worried about the cost of a number of parcels of land being sold for, say, residential purposes. In the development of that area some space will have to he marked out, or may well be permitted in any plan for shops.

My fear yesterday, when we were talking about the new Clause by which we proposed a method of global compensation that we thought would be fairer, was that, under the present scheme, every parcel of land will attract to itself some potential of the value as a shopping site. I gathered from the Minister that that fear was taken care of, to some extent, by subsection (3) of this new Clause. As this is an important matter, and one that causes a lot of concern outside, perhaps the Minister will show us how the subsection deals with that problem.

Mr. Brooke

During our discussion in Committee yesterday, I invited the hon. Member's attention to this subsection (3). I mentioned the positive part of it, whereas I think that he was really more concerned with the active part—

Mr. Skeffington

Yes.

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Gentleman has in mind the case where land is to be used for housing purposes. Everyone with any practical experience knows that if the area is of any size one does not confine it solely to houses. One may need shops, or other facilities that any ordinary community of any magnitude would require. The value of the land should take that possibility into account. At the same time, it should not be possible for the owner of any individual site to claim that his site, quite definitely, will be the one to be selected for the more valuable purpose. If he were to do that, someone else might do it and we should be right back to the conception of floating value.

The first part of subsection (3) introduces into the process of arriving at market value an indication that the valuer can pay attention to the possibility that, although the land as a whole is to be developed for housing purposes, some more valuable uses may be permitted within the land. Then the valuer will have to judge what are the odds in favour or against that piece of land being selected for the more valuable use.

The effect of that is that nobody gets the full amount of the more valuable use. He may get some element of it, but it will be only a percentage of the whole, related to his proportionate chance of getting the more valuable use on his land.

As I sought to explain, the second part of subsection (3) is the safeguarding part. It provides that a certificate issued under Clause 4 (4, b) can be utilised to counter an over-optimistic claim as to the potentialities of the land. That is the way it is done in this subsection. I think it will be found to be practical.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause: —

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 225.

Division No. 72.] AYES [4.21 p.m.
Alnsley, J. W. Healey, Denis Plummer, Sir Leslie
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Prentice, R. E.
Awbery, S, S. Herbison, Miss M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Probert, A. R.
Benson, Sir George Holman, P. Randall, H. E.
Beswick, Frank Holmes, Horace Rankin, John
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Houghton, Douglas Reeves, J.
Blackburn, F. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Reld, William
Blenkinsop, A, Hoy, J. H. Reynolds, G. W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.) Hunter, A. E. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boyd, T. C. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brockway, A. F. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Ross, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Janner, B. Royle, C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pnes,S.) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Burton, Miss F. E. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Short, E. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Callaghan, L. J. Key, Rt. Hon, C. W. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Carmichael, J. King, Dr. H. M. Skeffington, A. M.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lawson, G. M. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Champlon, A. J. Lee, Frederiok (Newton) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Chapman, W. D. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Coldrick, W. Lewis, Arthur Sparks, J. A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Logan, D. G. Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Steele, T.
Cullen, Mrs. A. McAlister, Mrs. Mary Stonehouse, John
Darling, George (Hillsborough) McCann, J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) MaoColl, J. E. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Dayies, Harold (Leek) MacDermot, Niall Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Deer, G. Mclnnes, J. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKay, John (Wallsend) Swingler, S. T.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) McLeavy, Frank Sylvester, G. O.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mahon, Simon Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Timmons, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mann, Mrs. Jean Tomney, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Fernyhough, E. Mason, Roy Viant, S. P.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty) Mellish, R. J. Warbey, W. N.
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan) Mikardo, Ian Weitzman, D.
Fletcher, Eric Mitchison, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Foot, D. M. Monslow, W. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Forman, J. C. Moody, A. S. Wheeldon, W. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Morris Percy (Swansea, W.) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then) Mort, D. L. Williams, David (Neath)
Gooch, E. G. Moss R. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moyle, A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Anthony Mulley, F. W. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Grey, C. F. Oliver, G. H. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oram A. E. Winterbottom, Richard
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Oswald, T. Woof, R. E.
Hale, Leslie Owen, W. J. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley) Padley, W. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hamilton, W. W. Parker, J. Zilllacus, K.
Hannan, W. Paton, John
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Hastings, S. Peart, T. P. Mr. J. Taylor and
Hayman, F. H. Pentland, N. Mr. G. H. R. Rogers
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Cooper, A. E.
Aithen, W. T. Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.
Alport, C. J. M. Bidgood, J. c. Corfield, F. V.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Biggs-Davison, J. A. Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Bishop, F. P. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Arbuthnot, John Bonham Carter, Mark Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Armstrong, C. W. Bossom, Sir Alfred Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Ashton, H. Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Cunningham, Knox
Atkins, H. E. Bryan, P. Currie, G. B. H.
Baldwin, Sir Archer Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Davidson, Viscountess
Barter, John Cary, Sir Robert Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Batsford, Brian Channon, H. P. G. D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Baxter, Sir Beverley Chichester-Clark, R. de Ferrantl, Basil
Beamish, Col. Tufton Cole, Norman Digby, Simon Wingfield
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cooke, Robert Doughty, C. J. A.
Drayson, G. B. Johnson, Erie (Blackley) Pitman, I. J.
du Cann, E. D. L. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Pitt, Miss E. M.
Duncan, Sir James Kershaw, J. A. Pott, H. P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Kirk, P. M. Powell, J. Enoch
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Leavey, J. A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Erroll, F. J. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E.A. H. Profumo, J. D.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Redmayne, M.
Fell, A. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Rees-Davles, W. R.
Finlay, Graeme Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Remnant, Hon. P.
Fisher, Nigel Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Ridsdale, j. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Robertson, Sir David
Freeth, Denzil Longden, Gilbert Robson Brown, Sir William
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Loveys, Walter H. Roper, Sir Harold
Gammans, Lady Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Tony Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Garner-Evans, E. H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Russell, R. S.
George, J. C. (Pollok) McAdden, S. J. Sharples, R. C.
Gibson-Watt, D. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Spearman, Sir Alexander
Glover, D. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Speir, R. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. McLean, Neil (Inverness) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Godber, J. B. Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Goodhart, Philip Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Stevens, Geoffrey
Gower, H. R. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Maddan, Martin Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Green, A. Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Grlmond, J. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Storey, S.
Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Markham, Major Sir Frank Studholme, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col R. G. Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. Summers, Sir Spencer
Gurden, Harold Marshall, Douglas Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Mathew R. Teeling, W.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Temple, John M.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Mawby, R. L. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Maydon, Lt. Comdr. S. L. C. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hay, John Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Molson Rt. Hon. Hugh Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Moore, Sir Thomas Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Nabarro G. D. N. Vane, W. M. F.
Hesketh, R. F. Nairn, D. L. S. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Neave, Airey Vickers, Miss Joan
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Nicholls, Harmar Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham) Wade, D. W.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Hirst, Geoffrey Noble, Michael (Argyll) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Hobson, John(Warwlck & Leam'gt'n) Nugent, G. R. H. Wall, Patrick
Holland-Martin, C. J. Oakshott, H. D. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Holt, A. F. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Hope, Lord John Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Hornby, R. P. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Webster, David
Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives) Osborne, C. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Page, R. G. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hurd, Sir Anthony Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hutohison, Mlohael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Partridge E. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Iromonger, T. L. Peel, W. J. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Peyton, J. W. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Mr. Brooman-White and
Mr. Whitelaw.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 26, at the end to insert: Provided that, if such planning permission was granted subject to conditions, nothing in this subsection shall have effect to permit those conditions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation. This is a very short and simple matter. I understand subsection (4) of the new Clause to refer to the question whether or not a planning permission is in existence. It is a guide to the cases in which a planning permission exists. But it mentions the possibility of a conditional planning permission, and its words are a little open to misconstruction. It says: For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. I think that I understand what is intended by that reference. I think it means that we are to treat a planning permission as being in force whether or not it was conditional. But the language is open to some misunderstanding. Although, for the purpose of its existence, that is no doubt right, we must not, at the same time, treat a conditional planning permission for all purposes as being the same as an unconditional planning permission. In particular, when, in assessing compensation, we have to consider the value of that planning permission, we must give it a value which is appropriate to it as a conditional planning permission and not a value appropriate to it as an unconditional planning permission.

The right hon. Gentleman always accuses me of an inveterate error if I suggest that planning permissions tend to have some plus value in the matter of the assessment of compensation, but even if, by some inversion particularly dear to the right hon. Gentleman, they were to have a minus value, the result would be the same. A conditional planning permission should be treated as what it is for the purpose of assessing compensation, and that is what the Amendment seeks to provide.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Amendment ought to commend itself to the House for two reasons, one a reason of substance and the other a drafting reason. Both have been indicated by my hon. and learned Friend. The Amendment is essential to the sensible drafting of the Clause. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, subsection (4, a) provides that for the purposes of the Clause it is immaterial whether planning permission was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. If we take that as it stands, it could mean that the direction to the person charged with the responsibility of assessing compensation is that he is entitled to ignore the conditions. That is one possible interpretation of the paragraph, and I am not sure that it is not the only one.

This seems to make nonsense of the provisions of the Clause. I understand that it is the Minister's intention that if a conditional planning permission is given the valuer should have regard to the conditions, and, if so, it would seem essential that he should say so. I should think that the only way in which he could say so would be by accepting the Amendment.

The reason of substance for which I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment is that in town and country planning matters it is notorious that planning permissions are very often given subject to conditions. Experience shows that on some occasions those conditions are observed but on other occasions disregarded. It is obviously very difficult for the Minister, his Department or local authorities to busy themselves with ensuring that conditions are always observed.

Although the conditions attaching to planning permissions are frequently disregarded in practice, there is no reason for surveyors or valuers to assume that they will be so disregarded. In fact, it is essential that in assessing compensation valuers should act on the assumption that conditions attached to planning permissions will be observed. If that is to be the canon upon which compensation is to be calculated, it seems essential that it should be incorporated in the express provisions of the Bill, and I submit that that can be done only by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke

When I first saw the Amendment I was puzzled as to the reason for it, because there is nothing in subsection (4, a) or, indeed, in any part of the subsection, which would have the effect of allowing conditions attached to planning permissions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation. I can certainly give the House the assurance that it is not intended that there should be such a disregard.

I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I think that he may have misread the subsection. It does not say, as he fears it may do, that if planning permission is granted subject to conditions it may be treated as though it had been granted unconditionally. What it says is: For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of the service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions …". Whether it was unconditional or subject to conditions, it is a planning permission for the purposes of the Clause.

The references to planning permissions in force occur in subsection (2) and in Clause 2 (2). In the new Clause, the effect of subsection (4, a) is to make assumed permissions additional to existing planning permissions, whether they are conditional or unconditional.

The effect of Clause 2 (2), when read with paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the new Clause, is that planning permission will not be assumed under subsection (2) for the development for which the land is being acquired if there is in existence an actual permission for that development, whether that development is conditional or unconditional, unless the permission is a personal one—this is dealt with in the Amendment on page 2, line 42. But there is nothing in the new Clause which says or implies that a condition attached to an actual planning permission may be disregarded. I give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.

I promise the hon. and learned Member that this matter has been considered very carefully and that there is no need for the Amendment in order to secure that the Clause means what I have described it to mean.

Mr. Mitchison

We are not entirely satisfied with the Minister's answer, but I agree that there is some doubt in the matter. I gather that he has been advised that the effect of the references as they stand would not be altered by this proviso. I am not prepared to divide the House on what seems to me to be a rather small point. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw 'he Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.