EXTENSION OF GROUNDS OF OBJECTION TO PURCHASE OF CLAIMANT'S INTEREST (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ Mr. MacColl
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes four changes in the Clause, but the only substantial one is the fourth. It may not always be clear to the planning authority what land will be required for the public use some time ahead. The Bill enables service of a counter-notice saying that the land will not be bought within 15 years, with the idea of relieving blight at least to some extent and giving some assurances.
The Bill permits this in two cases—where the land has been shown in the structure plan as being required, and whether it is indicated in the development plan as land on which a highway 1455 is to be constructed. It is not proposed to place an additional limit on the power to serve a 15-year notice. This will operate in favour of the citizen. It will strengthen his position, and, therefore, it is to his advantage.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I protest again about the 15 years' counter-notice. We have always objected to it. But the Amendment is a slight improvement from the Opposition point of view, in that it has reduced the number of cases in which the local authorities can say, "We shall not buy your property because we do not want it for 15 years. You can have it blighted on your hands for 15 years". I think that the Amendment reduces the number of cases in which this can be done. To that extent it is welcome, but I wish that we had done away with the 15 years' counter-notice.

§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at end add: provided that it is not occupied by a resident owner-occupier. The provisions for the relief of planning blight have been generally improved, notably in Clause 30, but Clause 31 is not so happy. But in this part of Clause 31 the provision for blight compensation is actually reduced. Under Section 140(2)(c) of the 1962 Act, an owner of agricultural land who asked for his property to be purchased because he was unable to sell it because of blight on part of it could be resisted to the extent that only the blighted part need be purchased. I can see the reason for this. If part of a field is blighted, then it is unreasonable to require that the whole of the farm should be taken in order to cure the blight.
Under the Act, other owners, if part of their land was blighted, could, and still can, require the whole to be pur- 1456 chased, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just mentioned the possibility of a motorway being put in close proximity to a house, making it intolerable to live in. However, subsection (6) of Clause 31 now extends the restriction from agricultural land to all land and the effect is that, if a person finds part of his garden is blighted, only that part need be acquired.
This was discussed in Standing Committee, when the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), then Minister of State, argued in favour of subsection (6) on the ground that the provisions of subsection (7) covered the case where the hereditament was not viable. He argued that, if there was to be a serious blight on a portion of the property, it might well be that the property was not viable and therefore subsection (7) would cover the case.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that it was unreasonable to have to acquire, for example, a whole shop when only the forecourt was blighted. Again, I can see his reasons. But let us look at the practical effect. I have a case in my constituency of a bungalow, part of whose garden lies on the route of the proposed A41 by-pass. My constituent has tried to sell the bungalow and cannot. It is effectively blighted. When he consulted me, I consulted the Ministry of Transport, which gave the advice that my constituent should put in his requirement to purchase extremely quickly, because if it arrived after the Bill took effect he would not be entitled to have his property purchased.
This brought forcibly to my attention the fact that this Clause represents a substantial diminution of the blight provision in relation to owner occupiers. According to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, my constituent would be left with an unviable garden, but would have a viable property. That will be the position under subsection (7). He would, in other words, have a viable but unsaleable bungalow. We are mainly moved not by the question of viability but by the question of saleability.
The example I have quoted is proof to me that the assurance we received in Standing Committee was inadequate and does not afford reasonable protection to those who find their property unsaleable through blight. This change in the law 1457 should not, therefore, go as far as including residential owner-occupiers.
The Amendment is a proviso which would bring about this restriction, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel able to accept it.

§ Mr. MacColl
The hon. Gentleman is pressing rather too strongly on one side. I see it as a balance, because we are introducing a power for owners to get compensation for disturbance, severance and injurious affection. That is clearly a substantial change to their betterment and it seems a reasonable quid pro quo that they should not be able to force acquiring authorities to take the whole of the hereditament when in fact they need only a minor part.

§ Mr. Allason
To obtain injurious affection the owner has to retain all the property until it is actually acquired for the purpose of the by-pass. I think that that will be for a number of years. The Parliamentary Secretary is asking my constituent to hang on to an unsaleable bungalow for the next 10 years in the hope that one day he will get injurious affection.

§ Mr. MacColl
As we approach midnight I have no desire to conduct, as it were, a "surgery" for the hon. Gentleman's constituency cases. I am sure that he got good advice about that case, but we are here looking at matters in the light of the fact that much greater facilities will be available to a person who is suffering from blight. Therefore, this is a reasonable balance. If taking a part of a property rendered the rest unsaleable, the owner could force the authority to buy it under subsection (7) or (8).