§ The references are to Bill No. 104.]
§
Page 78, line 14, at, end insert:
("(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the
1279
provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule, appeals to a tribunal under this Act.
§ (6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing subsection the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto.")
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because the said Amendment is inconsistent with the functions of the Central Land Board, would slow down the fixing of development charges and would thereby impede development.
§ LORD AMMONMy Lords, it will be within the memory of the House that this Amendment was passed without a Division in this House and went to another place and has been rejected there. A similar Amendment was made in the English Bill and met with a like fate. The position is that under the Bill the State are acquiring the development rights in land and will sell them through the Central Land Board. At the present time a person wishing to purchase land for development from a private owner has no right of appeal against the price asked by that owner and there seems no reason why in like circumstances an appeal should be given against the price set by the Central Land Board. Another argument against the provision of a right of appeal is that it may hold up developments which should proceed forthwith. Having a right of appeal, an applicant is always tempted to try his luck by taking the case further and, while the appeal is pending, not only is his development held up, but possibly also other cases dependent on or similar to his are delayed. I beg to move that this House does not insist on this Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Ammon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, as the noble Lord who has just spoken spoke in the absence of Lord Morrison, so I am 1280 speaking in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who, as your Lordships will recollect, took such a prominent part when the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill was going through this House. The noble Lord who has just sat down is quite right. All three of these Amendments were inserted in the Bill by this House without a Division on the understanding that if they remained in the English Bill they should be in the Scottish Bill, but if eventually the decision between the two Houses was that they should not be in the English Bill, then they should not be in the Scottish Bill either. We thought that it was right and proper that all three of these Amendments should be in both Bills, but the English Bill, which has received the Royal Assent, was passed without these Amendments in it and therefore it would obviously be wrong and against the understanding of this House if we were to try to insist on putting them in the Scottish Bill. In those circumstances we shall agree not to insist on the Amendment which we at one time put in the Scottish Bill.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.