HC Deb 05 July 1966 vol 731 cc348-56

If the existence of the works will result in material detriment or serious affection of the amenity or convenience of any house, building or factory and if a person having an interest in such house, building or factory shall apply to the corporation for the reasonable compensation for which provision is made in this section, the corporation is authorised by this Act to acquire by compulsory purchase the said interest (when six weeks shall have elapsed after the corporation shall have given to that person notice of its intention to acquire his interest in the said house, building or factory, as the case may be, and the application for compensation aforesaid has not been withdrawn) and if the corporation shall not so acquire the interest it shall make, in respect of any loss occasioned or to be occasioned to that person by the existence of the works, such reasonable compensation as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the tribunal.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

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

This Clause covers the same principle as that which we have just been discussing in connection with the other Bill. I shall endeavour not to repeat the arguments, but I think that it is important to consider this principle in connection with this Bill.

If I understand them correctly, the main purposes of the Bill are to acquire land in the city to build a new road system, and to develop land adjacent to the new road. I doubt whether such an ambitious, and rightly ambitious, scheme for the development of a provincial city has come before the House on any previous occasion.

Liverpool is a city of 720,000 people. It is the second largest provincial city in England and Wales, it is the second port of Britain, and it handles 25 per cent. of the nation's trade. It is the focal point of a population of 2 million on Merseyside. The roads, the ferries, and the tunnel all concentrate a tremendous flow of traffic into the centre of the city. Perhaps the word "flow" is ill-chosen, because at some times of the day in the centre of Liverpool, when, for example, there is a breakdown in the tunnel, the flow of traffic ceases in the centre of the city.

All provincial cities have their traffic problems, but I venture to say that Liverpool's is greater than that of any other provincial city, because, superimposed on the normal traffic of a city which is the centre of such an immense area of population, there is the dock traffic, and the congestion caused by this traffic endeavouring to get its goods into and out of the docks.

Liverpool, faced with this great problem, has decided to cater for its traffic rather than to ban it. It is true that under the Bill there will be a certain amount of restriction on traffic within the centre of the city, but I think that it is right to interpret the projects set forth in the promoter's statement on the Bill and in the Bill itself as projects for catering with the traffic rather than trying to restrict it and turn it out of the city.

The project is to develop an inner motorway five and a half miles in circumference. Some parts of this motorway will be at ground level, but some parts of it will be elevated as much as 30 ft. There are to be dual carriageways, each of three lanes, normally side by side, but in some places one on top of the other. To a large extent this inner motorway will go through property which is obsolete and ripe for development, but it will also go through other property which is usable, and which has a long life before it. The scheme is phased over 15 years, and is likely to cost about £57 million.

In the promoters' statement the proposed new road system is described as a major ring road, built to motorway standard", and they add that the new works as a whole will act as a hub and focal point for the primary routes which now radiate from the City Centre to the City Boundary and into the surrounding areas. This is all to be accomplished, not merely by building this inner motorway, but by acquiring property adjacent to it and carrying out development alongside the motorway, first, the development of car parks to keep as much traffic as possible out of the centre of the city, secondly, for the purpose of providing land for those who are displaced from the immediate land on which the road will be placed, and, thirdly, to acquire land so as to bring this new road within a system for the whole of the City centre.

8.15 p.m.

I think that perhaps no scheme as bold and as imaginative as this has been conceived previously for any provincial city, and I believe that if Liverpool is to survive as a major city of the United Kingdom it is necessary for this scheme to go ahead and I believe that it is a scheme which will meet the need for the survival of Liverpool. But it involves great powers of acquisition of land.

The Bill provides for that acquisition and for the payment of compensation by incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts as they relate to the power of acquisition of land, and the payment of compensation. It gives the corporation power to carry out these compulsory acquisitions within three years, but it also gives the Minister power to extend those three years, and if the scheme is to be phased over 15 years, obviously this power of compulsory acquisition will be extended. In such cases Clause 6 gives an owner of property the right to serve a purchase notice on the corporation so that he may force the corporation to acquire property which may have become blighted by the anticipated scheme.

Furthermore the corporation has been very wise to provide an option Clause. I shall not go into the details of it, but briefly it means that the matter can be settled between the corporation and the owner, if the owner wishes it to be so settled, at an early date. The corporation has also given an undertaking that it will endeavour to find other suitable accommodation for many of those who will be displaced.

To a great extent the corporation has recognised the injury to individuals which this scheme will cause for the benefit of the community, and that when land is taken, and when an owner's property is damaged, for the benefit of the community, that individual should be compensated. Thus, as in the Bill which we have recently been debating, there is a Clause which deals with compensation to the owner who is left with part of his land when the other part of it is taken for the purpose of the project. He will receive compensation, whereas the man whose land is damaged because it is adjacent to the motorway will get no compensation at all.

What I think it is important for the corporation to consider is that in many parts of the city there will be an elevated roadway perhaps passing by the first or second storey of an office block or residential building, and undoubtedly causing a severe deterioration in value of such a building, due to the proximity of a busy road. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) who mentioned the Hammersmith flyover.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Is it not correct to say that Liverpool Corporation is not only taking the land required for the actual motorway but a small area of land on either side, for the sole purpose of landscaping it, in which case the argument that the hon. Member is putting forward will not apply?

Mr. Page

I mentioned that as being an intention of the corporation, but I do not understand from the scheme that that will happen all along the length of the motorway. I expect that there will be many instances where the proximity of the motorway will damage adjoining property but in respect of which there will be no grounds for a claim for compensation. The damage to an individual's property should be recognised, even though no part of that property is taken from him.

Mr. Walter Alldritt (Liverpool, Scotland)

My hon. Friend has raised the question of additional land acquired alongside the motorway and has suggested that this was for landscaping. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), in reply, has said, "Yes, it is for that purpose." Is there any authority for this statement?

Mr. Page

In their statement the promoters say that there are three associated purposes for the acquisition of land. They wish to acquire land not only for the actual site of the motorway but for three other purposes—first, for high capacity car parks, secondly, in order to offer alternative accommodation to those displaced by the motorway, and, thirdly, in the words of the corporation: the Corporation have sought to avoid, in the design and construction of the new elevated road, the serious injury to amenity which can arise from the mere imposition on an urban area of a major elevated road system, and drawing on the limited experience which has been gained in this field in this country, and the much greater experience gained abroad, propose to acquire on each side of the line of the new road adequate land which can be redeveloped in such a way that the new road will be properly integrated into and blend with the urban landscape. The promoters have recognised exactly the problem to which I am referring, namely, that if they build an elevated road neighbouring property will be damaged, and it will therefore seek to acquire land adjoining the road and thus alleviate that hardship. But there is no guarantee that throughout the whole length of the road the corporation will be able to carry out its intention as described, and if it is unable to avoid this serious injury to the amenity of adjoining properties those adjoining properties should be compensated.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree is under some misconception about what I was endeavouring to put forward in connection with the previous Bill. I seek to bring into the ambit of the new Clause the question of "material detriment" to the property. This phrase is used in all the Acts which deal with compensation for severance. I seek to cover the question of material detriment, or the case where development has seriously affected the amenity or convenience of the property. I do not think that this would cover the case of a by-pass road taking away trade from business premises. I know that business premises are frequently injured in that way, but I am seeking to concentrate on serious damage to property—damage which can be seen or felt by the man who has to live or work in that property. He should be compensated.

I see no reason why we should wait for an amendment to the general law to do this, and I hope that in the same way as the Liverpool Corporation is a pioneer in the development of city centres it may be a pioneer in the amendment of the law.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Hon. Members will know that the Bill has the unanimous support of all parties in the Liverpool City Corporation and also of every Liverpool Member, in principle. I want to place on record the fact that the debate, together with the previous one, has been attended by nearly every Liverpool Member of Parliament—by my hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), the Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Alldritt), the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and, on the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney)—and I know that the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is also closely concerned with the Bill and supports it in principle.

We may have our points of difference on later Clauses, but I want to put on record the fact that if some of us have deliberately kept quiet, in spite of the temptation put in front of us by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), it is because we hope to secure the Second Reading of the Bill before 10 o'clock. We do not want to do anything Lo delay its passage through the House more than it has been delayed in the past. Silence is golden on occasions, and this is one of those occasions.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I see eye to eye on so many things that I hate to find myself once again in opposition to him, although not in respect of many of the things that he said, and especially his tribute to my city of Liverpool. I rake this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Liverpool Cathedral Committee to the Liverpool Corporation for meeting its objections. I know that the corporation has also gone out of its way to meet the objections of many Liverpool citizens.

This is a matter in which we are all interested, on whatever side of the House we may sit. We want to see the trade of Liverpool fructify and increase, and one of the ways of doing that is to improve urban transport in our city. We have done it quite well recently with our one-way streets, on which traffic moves very much better than it did a year or two ago. We all live by the trade of the Port of Liverpool. We want to see it increase as much as possible. I only regret that so many people who work in Liverpool wish to live either in Wirral or even in Crosby. This is something I find difficult to understand.

8.30 p.m.

I must point out that a Private Bill of this kind is not the method by which one should change the general law dealing with compensation, a law which, I understand, has not been changed since the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. I am no lawyer, but this is what I am told. My hon. Friend may say that it is high time there was a change, but if so it surely should be done by a general and not a Private Bill.

I sympathise with many of the citizens of Liverpool for feeling that they should get compensation for injurious affections. It seems a little unfair that if a part of someone's property is taken, the owner of that property not only receives compensation for the land taken but also receives compensation for any injurious affection to the rest of his or her property.

This is something which the Minister should consider in the general context of the law. As the law stands at present, it would be as well for the House to remember, with regard to injurious affection, that under Section 68 of the 1845 Act compensation is payable only if the four following requirements are satisfied—first, that the injurious affection is such that it would have given a right to an action for damages if it had not been authorised by Statute; second, that the injurious affection arises from the execution of the works and not from their subsequent use; third, that the value of the land or an interest in the land is directly affected by physical interference with some legal right of which the claimant is entitled to make use in connection with the land, for instance, the obstruction of the right of access; and, fourth, that the damage flows as a direct consequence of the actions or omissions of the body authorised by Statute to execute the works complained of, the measure of compensation being assessed in the same way as damages in an action for tort.

Under Clause 10 of the Bill, the corporation has to give three months' notice to acquire and it will pay the purchase money plus interest on the money when it is ultimately paid. The corporation has indicated that once it has settled the price of purchase and investigated the title, it will make that payment without undue delay. It wishes to ensure quick payment and to avoid hardships, especially for those who may have to await a decision of the Lands Tribunal about compensation.

The corporation has also indicated that, as regards relocation, it would be prepared to advance money by mortgage according to the circumstances. Ninety per cent. may be the wrong figure, but the corporation is a good landlord and a good negotiator: a third of the city of Liverpool is owned by the corporation. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that the Corporation would like to meet the wishes of those for whom he has spoken, but Treasury consent must be received for any capital borrowed in order to pay my constituents or the citizens of Liverpool, and remember too that the corporation are no less accommodating than the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East)

I was one of the four Members who, upstairs, made the recommendation referred to on page 4 of the corporation's statement. We were concerned with the fact that the commercial interests of Liverpool originally arraigned against the Bill, and for powerful arguments, withdrew their opposition before the Committee sat. To that extent, it should be recorded that the commercial interests so vividly described by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) have, in the main, been fairly well satisfied.

The Committee upstairs was particularly concerned with what I call the little people who might be hurt. It is in the light of that that I listened carefully to the Minister's statement, for I would not like to feel that that statement, which sort of foreshadowed a serious look which will be given at this problem, will be any wider than many of my hon. Friends wish it to be.

I come to the nub of the argument, which is that in the case submitted by various people through what I believe was a residential association, the complaints of the ordinary people were ven- tilated before us and it became clear that the Federation of Property Owners saw that it was an opportunity for it to advance the general case for better compensation terms. I recognise this to be the fact and I assure my right hon. Friend that it will have little or no encouragement from me.

Having said that, I recall my experience in, for example, Oldham, where we are knocking down thousands of houses every two or three years and where, in my consultations with the people concerned, I have found that the owners of commercial premises are generally well-satisfied. In other words, in their ownership of premises, when those premises fall for clearance, they have always found that their interests have been safeguarded in the first place by all the legal advice and advantages which professional ownership gives to them.

There is, however, a case to be made on behalf of the little people—the small shopkeeper and owner-occupier—and I take part in this discussion mainly to ask my right hon. Friend if, as I hope, these people will be considered, the question of whether the existing compensation terms are fair and proper for 1966 onwards must be considered bearing in mind that there is a substantial difference between the professional owner of property and the safeguards which he takes before becoming the owner of such property and the safeguards which he operates during the period of his ownership, and the little man who is not versed in this sphere and who, for purposes of thrift or enterprise runs a little shop or owns a house or is in some other way an owner-occupier. There is a substantial difference between the two types of people.

If, in a year or two, the House of Commons is faced with a variation in legislation which is intended to meet the hardships of these little people, then, with that possibility in mind, we should be cautious when considering this matter, because it is felt by many people that the larger businesses I have mentioned are well able to look after their own interests.

Question put and negatived.