Clause 27 (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
The position here, as I understand, is that of the planning permission which has been granted in respect of the development of an estate, where the permission contains conditions that parts of the land should be left for open spaces. If a planning permission contains that condition, it would be wrong for the developer to make a further planning application at a later date to develop those open spaces and, upon refusal of that planning application, to claim that he has no reasonable beneficial use of the land and that he should therefore receive compensation for refusal of planning permission. If a condition has been imposed that, in making one development he should leave certain land vacant, it would be most improper if he were to benefit from the refusal of planning permission later for the development of that land.
As I understand it, the prime purpose of the Clause is to declare that in those circumstances the developer shall 713 not receive any compensation for being refused planning permission, even though the refusal makes the land of no reasonable beneficial use. But the Clause goes much further. It provides for this rule to apply not only when a specific condition has been imposed to keep a certain part of the estate vacant and undeveloped but when the local planning authority in granting the first planning permission contemplated that some of the land would be left as an open space and undeveloped.
The Clause says that when land has a restricted use by virtue of a previous planning permission and permission is then refused the owner shall not be entitled to serve a purchase notice. Subsection (2) says that it is to be treated as having a restricted use if it is part of a larger area in respect of which planning permission was previously granted and, in paragraph (a), a specific condition was imposed, or, in paragraph (b), the planning permission was granted on an application which contemplated (expressly or by necessary implication) that the part should not be comprised in the development for which planning permission was sought, or should be preserved or laid out as aforesaid. How is the applicant to know what was in the minds of the local planning authority when it first granted the planning permission if it did not put it into the permission as a condition?
As I read it, paragraph (b) would go much further than imposing an implied restriction on the applicant's land. A local planning authority might well have contemplated that the adjacent land would be vacant in future. If it contemplated that and the owner of that vacant land some years later asked for planning permission the local planning authority could say, "No. Some years ago we contemplated, when giving planning permission for the neighbouring land, that you would keep this as an open space." Under those circumstances it would be fair for the owner of that land to say," You have refused me reasonable beneficial use of my land and I am entitled to serve a purchase notice under Section 129 of the 1962 Act."
The paragraph seems to go much further than is necessary or reasonable to prevent the mischief which I willingly concede exists, the mischief of someone trying to gain an advantage from the 714 fact that he has developed an area on condition that he leaves certain land vacant and then saying, "I want to develop it. If you refuse me the right to do so I shall put in a purchase notice." That is wrong, but if he does not know after the first planning permission has been granted what implied conditions the local planning authority has contemplated at the time it is grossly unfair to tie him to those implied conditions, when they are not put in his planning permission and are not expressed anywhere, because the paragraph says specifically that the Clause is to apply to conditions which were contemplated "expressly or by necessary implication" when the first planning permission was granted.

§ Mr. Skeffington
We had an interesting discussion on 26th March on this point. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has accepted that when a specific condition is laid down, it would be wrong to say, "I want to develop on the open space or amenity land", and serve a purchase notice. In an application which came before the planning committee and upon which permission was given where the developer has secured planning permission for the whole of the area because of something which he put in the application without which he might not have got the permission or would have had a condition attached, this case is precisely the same as where a specific condition has been attached. Permission would never have been given in the first place if the layout had not been of sufficient merit to get the sanction of the local planning authority. In those circumstances, a scheme having been approved and the development having been allowed, it is wrong that the developer should at a later stage say, "I do not want to keep this now. I want to build upon it, and serve a purchase notice and compel the authority to pay compensation".
Two points in rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's argument are these. First, this is an application which the developer has made; it is not something thought up by the planning authority. Secondly, this can relate only to land in the applicant's area. This is clear from subsections (1) and (2). For these reasons, we can see, in practice, no difference between 715 the two categories. It would be most unfair if the local planning authority had to pay compensation in this case.

§ Mr. Graham Page
If the land belongs to some other party, do I understand that this still applies? Is that other party prevented from putting in a planning application in relation to that land?

§ Mr. Skeffington
I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. May I assume that he is referring to planning permission for any land which has a restricted use by virtue of the previous planning permission or which relates to the land of the applicant's area? If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there might be somebody else seeking planning permission, I cannot see how this could operate. If the original scheme had been passed because of the merits of the layout, this will apply equally. On the other hand, the Clause cannot bite on land which was not the subject of the previous planning decision.

§ Mr. Page
Take the example of two fields next to one another. A planning application does not necessarily have to refer only to the applicant's land. He can put in an application relating to his neighbouring land. He can say that he will develop field A, and he can show on the plan that field B is to be left vacant to provide a nice view for the development on A. The owner of field B can come along some years later and put in an application to develop B, and he would be told that in contemplating the first application it was thought that B would be left vacant. Will this prejudice the second applicant when he applies for development permission for his own land? That is how I interpret paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Skeffington
The owner will have to be told of any planning permission which relates to other land. There would not be a planning application in relation to the other land, as I see it. If the consideration of the merits of the development includes land in the developer's area, quite clearly the provisions of paragraph (b) apply. If it is an alternative additional scheme outside, I do not think they apply.