§ 28. Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport what consultation he is having with the Greater London Council on the subject of compensating house owners whose property depreciates in value as the result of the proposed motorway box.
§ Mr. MarshThis subject forms part of the general study on compensation which is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My Department is also closely associated with this study, and the views expressed by the Greater London Council, both in writing and in oral discussion, are being taken into account.
§ Mr. JenkinsIs my right hon. Friend aware that the value of houses in Putney on either side of the line of the proposed motorway box is already declining and that the G.L.C. is refusing compensation to the owners? In view of the amount of housing to be displaced and the refusal to compensate, would it not be better to place the motorway box further out of London where the number of people disturbed and the number of people whose amenities would be damaged would be very much reduced?
§ Mr. MarshThe motorway box is another and a somewhat complex subject. No decision has been finally taken by the Ministry, but it was precisely because of public anxiety about this problem, which has been with us for a very long time, that it was decided to go ahead with a general study of compensation in these circumstances.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). However, is not the trouble the fact that the general compensation law does not allow compensation to be paid where there is great loss of amenity if no land is actually taken? As this applies particularly to the railways, 25 will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind closely to this difficulty?
§ Mr. MarshThat is the point of the study. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complicated problem, because once we begin to compensate for loss of amenity it will be very difficult to draw a line.