Schedule 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO GENERAL VESTING DECLARATIONS.) (Hansard, 27 October 1966)

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment No. 121, in page 93, line 21, at the beginning to insert: 'Except as provided by paragraph 12 of this Schedule'. It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider with it Amendment No. 122, in page 93, line 27, after 'severed', insert: 'and is so served within the time allowed in accordance with paragraph 4(2) of this Schedule'. and Amendment No. 126, in page 94, line 48, at end insert: 12.—(1) Where in accordance with paragraph 4(1) of this Schedule a person is entitled to serve a notice of objection to severance, and it is proved—

(a) that he never received the notice required by section 9(3) of this Act to be served on him, or received that notice less than twenty-eight days before, or on or after, the date on which the period specified in the general vesting declaration expired, and

(b) that a notice of objection to severance served by him was served not more than twenty-eight days after the date on which he first had knowledge of the execution of the general vesting declaration,

that notice shall have effect notwithstanding that it is served after the time allowed in accordance with paragraph 4(2) of this Schedule has expired. (2) Where, in the circumstances specified in the preceding sub-paragraph, a person serves a notice of objection to severance after the end of the period specified in the general vesting declaration,— 1528

(a) paragraphs 5 and 8 of this Schedule shall not have effect in relation to that notice;

(b) paragraph 6 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to that notice as if subparagraph (a) of that paragraph were omitted;

(c) paragraph 7 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to that notice with the substitution, for the words 'sub-paragraph (a)', of the words 'sub-paragraph (b)'; and

(d) paragraph 10 of this Schedule shall not have effect in relation to that notice, but without prejudice to the making by the Tribunal of any such determination as is mentioned in that paragraph.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the House has no objection, so be it.

§ Mr. Allason
There are supplementary provisions in the Schedule as to general vesting declarations, and it is here that we seek to make Amendments. Where there is a compulsory purchase order on part of a person's property he is entitled to appeal against severance; in the case of a house, building or factory that the loss of the part causes material damage; and in the case of a park or garden that it seriously affects the amenity or convenience of the property. If this is agreed, the compulsory purchase order must be extended to the whole.
Such objection to severance must be served within 28 days after the service of the notice of the general vesting order on him. But if the person on whom the notice is served does not receive it he is in some trouble, because 28 days after service the general vesting declaration takes effect and he has lost the property. He may still want to appeal, and he should have some rights. Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 are paving Amendments, and Amendment No. 126, makes provision for his either never having received the notice or having received it too late, not necessarily after the 28 days had expired.
There are normally four courses open to the Commission, but, once the land has been vested, two of those courses are not applicable. The courses normally open to the Commission on receiving objection are withdrawal of notice to treat, acceptance of a requirement to purchase the whole, reference to the Lands Tribunal, or no action for three months, in which case the Commission is deemed to have withdrawn the notice to treat.
1529 The first and last of these courses are not applicable in the present case and we are left with either the Commission accepting the requirement to purchase as a whole or a decision to refer to the Lands Tribunal. The effect of Amendment No. 126 is to confine the alternatives to those two.
Sub-paragraph (2) of Amendment No. 126 makes detailed amendments to the procedure in this case. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule does not apply because the land may already have been taken, and paragraph 8 does not apply because course 1, withdrawal of notice to treat, and course 4, taking no action for three months, are not applicable. Paragraph 6(a) of the Schedule does not apply for the same reason as paragraph 8 does not apply. Paragraph 7 requires a consequential amendment, and paragraph 10 must have changes to allow the Lands Tribunal to take a decision, but the reference in paragraph 10 to the Lands Tribunal cancelling paragraph 5 is entirely applicable.
With the changes made by Amendment 126 in that way, we allow someone to serve notice of objection to severance on the Commission, and it will then be possible for that notice to go on reference to the Lands Tribunal even though the objection was received by the Commission out of time, on condition that it is a bona fide case in which, although the Commission served notice correctly, it was not received by the person concerned.

§ Mr. Willey
The Government are very happy to accept this Amendment and the related Amendments.

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment No. 124, in page 94, line 32, to leave out from 'Tribunal' to the second 'the' in line 34 and to insert: 'does not make a determination in accordance with'. I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 125, in page 94, line 36, to leave out from 1530 'whole' to the end of the line and to insert: 'of it or a part of it which includes the part comprised in the general vesting declaration) which the Commission ought to be required to take'.

§ Mr. Speaker
If there is no objection, so be it.

§ Mr. Allason
Paragraph 11 of the Schedule allows the Lands Tribunal to determine where additional land ought to be taken in order to avoid detriment which the owner has complained will occur. The two Amendments alter the existing wording from "land necessary to avoid damage" to "land which ought to be taken". This is the subtle distinction. It is very limiting to speak of land strictly necessary to be taken. If the reference is to land which ought to be taken, the Lands Tribunal is given discretion to instruct that a somewhat wider area of land should, for convenience, be taken.
The sort of example might be that where there is land to be taken in an area it would leave a small portion on the far side which would be totally impracticable and unsatisfactory for the owner and it would be better for the Lands Tribunal to order that the whole should go rather than that what is strictly necessary should go. I think that this, again, is a helpful Amendment.

§ Mr. Willey
Again, I am happy to accept these Amendments.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am happy to let things rip along like this as long as the Amendments really are drafting Amendments. But when we come to one that deals with the six years referred to in sub-paragraph (1) and says that no account shall be taken of any period during which the person claiming compensation or the person from whom he derives title was in a minority or less age or was under legal disability. I do need a little further explanation of it. This is not just a drafting Amendment.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel offended by the fact that I did not rise. It really is, strangely enough, a drafting error. We felt it proper to put down the provision 1532 now proposed which corresponds to the Scottish provision contained in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1945. Paragraph 6(1) to that Schedule is in similar terms to paragraph 18(1) of this Schedule. We thought originally that since the Limitation Act 1939 does not apply to Scotland, a statutory limitation was inappropriate to Scotland, but we have reconsidered it.
I would pledge that it is a drafting error and not an error of policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel we have been unfair in not speaking to it earlier.