HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1229-33
Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 25, line 6, to leave out from the beginning to the second "any" in line 8, and to insert: Where planning permission for the carrying out of material development of any land is for the time being in force". Under Clause 22 the owner may require the Commission to elect whether or not to purchase. This is a very necessary requirement when there is the possibility of the land being taken by the Commission and where there is planning permission after the second appointed day and also within three months of the date of planning permission granted after the second appointed day.

The effect of this Amendment is to cover cases where planning permission is in force at any time after the first appointed day so that after the first appointed day where the planning permission exists, even though it may be 10 years old, because of the threat that the land may be taken and there is power from the first appointed day for it to be taken. It seems reasonable that the owner should be entitled to ask the Commission whether or not it will take the land and it has to elect one way or the other.

If a compulsory purchase order is threatened, the owner of any property is in a very serious position. If he wants to sell, he finds it quite impossible to do so. We all know cases in which if there is a compulsory purchase order a possible buyer shies away. The owner may be inclined to carry out some development himself, but if it will cost him more money and further investigation by professional authorities before he can carry out the development, he will be chary of doing it because he may become involved in considerable architects' fees and then the Commission take over the property. It seems right that the owner should be able at any time to get a decision on whether the Commission will buy him out or that he is not threatened by the Commission.

This blight, which is so well known already, will operate all over the country after 1st March next year. It will operate from the first appointed day. It is quite unfair to limit the right to elect solely to after the second appointed day and also to within three months only of planning approval. Often the fact of blight is not clearly recognised by an owner of land. Hon. Members will know of many cases where a planning decision has been made without the owner knowing anything about it. There is the possibility of a road passing near a house and at some time later when the owner intends to sell a search being made and a planning decision order being found and blight being discovered. It would be a great pity to hold it to within three months of planning permission. The Minister may say that in these days a man is bound to learn that planning permission has been granted over his land. Things are improving these days, but the owner of the land may not realise the import of the planning permission, and it seems unfair to tie him down to the three months after planning permission has been granted. The Amendment would make life a little fairer for owners of property suffering from planning blight.

Mr. Skeffington

We had a discussion in Standing Committee on an Amendment which went part of the way, but not all the way, that this Amendment goes. As reported in col. 498 of the Committee Report, my right hon. Friend explained why the protection afforded by Clause 22 was necessary to the owner only after the second appointed day. Only then were the limitations in the existence of planning permission on its own sufficient to enable the Commission to acquire compulsorily land suitable for material development. Before the second appointed day the owner could allege that he was about to carry out early development. If the Commission only wanted to ensure that development would be carried out this could be sufficient to prevent it from acquiring.

It is true that the debate did not cover the power to extend the Clause after the second appointed day to land covered by planning permission granted before that date. There are two reasons which must be taken into account, particularly in view of the omnibus nature of the provisions in the Amendment. If the owners intend to develop presumably they will get on and do so, and if they do not so intend, then it is unreasonable that the Commission should have to deal with the matter. Alternatively, if they do not want to develop because it is not appropriate or profitable, I fail to see why the Commission should be plagued with notices requiring them to elect whether or not to purchase. This would place a heavy burden on the Commission. Having listened to the arguments, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page

The Clause accepts that when an owner has planning permission he should be able to call on the Land Commission to make up its mind. The only difference here arises out of the time at which he gets his planning permission. There seems to be no principle or moral behind it, whether he gets it before or after the appointed day.

Here is a land owner with permission to develop his land. Let us say that he owns a factory and has planning permission to extend the factory, or that he has his own dwelling house and has permission to extend it into his garden. Under Clause 6(3,a) if he starts that development the Commission can step in and compulsorily acquire the property. It is only reasonable that the man should know whether, when he is half-way through the extension to his factory or dwelling house, the Land Commission will step in and put a compulsory purchase order on the property. Whatever time he gets his planning permission, he should have the right to call on the Commission to make up its mind. If this would be a burden on the Land Commission, then extend the time in which it must answer a requisition of that sort. The owner should not all the time be under the threat of the Land Commission putting a compulsory purchase order on his property.

2.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary said "If he has got planning permission, let him get on with the job and do it." This is what the man will normally want to do, but he wants to know before he starts the job that he is free from some sort of Sword of Damocles dropping on his head from the Land Commission. He wants a clearance from the Land Commission, and he wants to know that he can do the job and enjoy the results of his work, without the Commission seizing the property from him.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The next Amendment is No. 43. Mr. Allason.

Mr. Allason

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I discussed Amendment No. 43, which deals with the three months question, without your permission at an earlier stage. I apologise for doing so, but it has in fact been discussed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think the hon. Member had better move the Amendment formally.

Amendment proposed: In page 25, line 10, leave out from "may" to end of line.—[Mr. Allason.]

Amendment negatived.