HC Deb 20 June 1967 vol 748 cc1614-6
Mr. Allason

I beg to move Amendment 73, in page 44, line 37, to leave out 'development' and to insert: 'material development as defined in the Land Commission Act 1967 and in statutory instruments made under the authority of that Act'. The Clause reserves the value of development rights in the case of local authorities, new towns and university bodies. The reason is given in paragraph 15 of the White Paper, which starts: Different considerations apply to enfranchisement of land owned by local authorities. Where future development rights in land have already been vested in the community in the public interest, it is not right to transfer them back to private individuals. The method used in the Clause permits covenants to be made against any improvements taking place to property. For example, if an enfranchised tenant wanted to put up a garage, greenhouse or sun room, in making any development of that sort he would be acting improperly. The Amendment would permit reasonable minor improvements by using the definition of material development, which is now fairly well recognised as being a development which attracts Land Commission levy. This is the sort of development which is, clearly, intended in the White Paper. I am sure that the White Paper was not drafted in terms of minor improvements to a house as being something which is entirely against the public interest and must be stopped at all costs.

Those who live in new towns have very great pride of ownership and wish to be able to improve their property. Where they have long leases, they will wish to enfranchise, and they certainly will not expect to have covenants imposed on them that will prevent reasonable improvements. I hope that the Minister can accept this small Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington

The hon Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has rightly quoted the reason for Clause 29 and the restriction by way of covenant which certain bodies can invoke in agreements where their tenants are about to enfranchise. I do not think that there has been any general quarrel with the principle that where development rights are already vested in a public authority, it would be absurd to pass them back and then make the authority compulsorily acquire them again.

1.30 a.m.

The hon. Member was right to say that the White Paper does not suggest that authorities need to be oppressive in their covenants. They must reserve their rights, but all sorts of development are possible by permission or understanding or agreement. But the hon. Member failed to realise that the Clause derives from Section 17 of the Land Commission Act in relation to the position of Crownholders and that it uses the broader term and not the narrow term which he uses. He uses the precedent from the Land Commission Act which suits his purpose, but he does not use that which was the father of this provision. The reason that "material development" was used in the Land Commission Act is that it was not thought reasonable to impose levy on a very wide range of development which it was hoped that those concerned would undertake.

But the hon. Member was wrong to refer to "minor" development. It is true that in some paragraphs of the General Development Order some of the matters dealt with are trivial. But the developments permitted under Schedule 3 which do not carry levy under the Land Commission Act are not minor. Under Schedule 3 one can rebuild as many times as necessary the house which one occupies as long at it does not increase it by one-third or 1,750 cu. ft. more than the original cubic capacity. That is hardly minor development. It would be ridiculous to say that public authorities may retain development rights by covenant and at the same time allow people to rebuild as many times as they liked in enlarging the house. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Moreover, authorities can—and sensible and wise authorities I am sure will—and Ministerial suggestions to this end can be made if they do not—implement these provisions reasonably. These are rights which do not always exist with a private landlord. Further, a local authority is not obliged to insert covenants if it is sure—in relation to its development rights—that it is not likely to require the property for, say, 50 or 60 years. That will be governed by the plans.

The general principle is that if the development rights are vested in the authority it would be absurd to prevent the authority from exercising them. I must ask the House to accept the Clause as drafted.

Amendment negatived.