TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL (Hansard, 7 May 1959)

HL Deb 07 May 1959 vol 216 cc221-32 221

§ House again in Committee.

§ 3.46 p.m.

§ LORD SILKIN
Before I accede to the invitation of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—which, with respect, I think is sound advice—I should like to say a word about the whole series of Amendments. I regard the new clause which is in the name of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor as a compromise. It goes further than the original Bill, but it does 222 not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would like. As I understood the original Bill, it was intended mainly to help the small man. Although in terms, of course, there was no limit to the resident owner-occupier, there would be very few resident owner-occupiers whose net annual value of whose property was more than £250 a year. Even as extended, there will be very few of that kind. There will be very few shopkeepers, for example, who are resident on premises whose net annual value is more than £250. So the design is to help the small man.
Now the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would extend the provision to a very great extent, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has indicated, and I should certainly be strongly opposed to it. Not that it is not logical: I want to concede at once that I can see a certain amount of logic in treating in the same way all owners of property whose land is subject to blight; but it makes nonsense of the whole idea of designation and of notice. At the time of the passage of the Town and Country Planning Bill I was strongly pressed from all sides to make provision for giving notice in the designation to people whose land might be affected. If the idea had been that the moment they were given notice they could press the local authority to acquire their land, then I think one would have hesitated very much to impose that burden on the local authorities.
There is a precedent of a sort. In the New Towns Act it is possible for an owner, at the end of five years after designation, to require the development corporation to acquire his land; but that is after five years, and where it is known that the town is going to be completed within a very limited period. Therefore, that imposes no hardship on the development corporation. They may be buying a year earlier than they have wanted to, but, by and large, we thought that five years was the right period. In the Amendment and in the clause, the moment a particular piece of property is specified the owner can require the local authority to buy if the conditions are satisfied. I think that the new clause is a reasonable compromise, and I hope it will be accepted by the whole Committee. In that hope I propose to withdraw my 223 Amendment. But if this matter is reopened, I should like to reserve the right to put down a further Amendment in order to preserve my own position. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD HYLTON had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (2) to leave out "a resident owner-occupier" and insert "an owner". The noble Lord said: The Committee is in some difficulty. Here we have what would appear to be onerous pre-acquisitions by planning authorities and public bodies, or we may well have blighted areas, the owners of which are going to suffer loss and hardship. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it is difficult to see exactly where the line should be drawn between the public interest and the private interest of owners of blighted land. I am prepared to fall in with the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion not to move this Amendment, to have a discussion on Clause 34 and to reserve the right to put down a further Amendment at a later stage.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
I have been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that he does not wish to move Amendment No. 88a which stands in his name.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment goes together with two Amendments to the Fifth Schedule. They deal with the case where a building stands on the boundaries of two or more wards and will thus be divided among the corresponding valuation lists and appear to form more than one hereditament although it would otherwise constitute a single hereditament. The Amendments provide that in such a case the building shall be treated under Clause 34 and the Fifth Schedule as a single hereditament. This is merely a technical point. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 52, line 30, after "hereditament" insert "subject to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment and the next three are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

224

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 52, line 37 after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"

§ Page 52, line 43, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"

§ Page 53, line 2, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)"

§ Page 53, line 6, after "date" insert "(whether before or after the commencement of this Act)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment embodying a proviso to subsection (7) and a number of additional subsections to the clause. The noble Viscount said: As I explained on the last occasion, I put down this Amendment at a time when the Government appeared to me to make no provision at all for agriculture. I think that the Amendment after Clause 34 goes a long way to meet this point, and accordingly I shall not move my Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 53, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
As the clause stands, paragraph (b) of subsection (8) attracts for Scotland the same definition, verbally, of hereditament as is contained in subsection (7), with the intention of securing a definition with the same scope as that for England and Wales. In effect, however, the Scottish is inappropriately wider than was intended, since until the new rating system comes into effect in 1961, following the full operation of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, agricultural lands and buildings can enter the valuation roll along with the farm dwellinghouse as a single entry. After 1961, Section 7 of the 1956 Act will secure the exclusion altogether from the valuation roll of agricultural land and heritages. The benefits of Clause 34 are meant to be extended only to hereditaments consisting of dwellinghouses and their curtilages. The Amendment effects the necessary narrowing of the definition by excluding agricultural lands and heritages. I beg to move.

225

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 53, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— (b) any reference to a hereditament shall subject to the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act and notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) of this section) be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the lands and heritages (not being agricultural lands and heritages within the meaning of section seven of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956) which form the subject of a single entry in the valuation roll for the time being in force for a valuation area".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

§ 3.57 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after Clause 34 to insert the following new Clause:

§ Obligation to purchase interests of other owner-occupiers affected by planning proposals

§ "(1) Where any land falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section, the provisions of this section shall have effect—

(a) in relation to any hereditament which, or part of which, is comprised in that land, and is a hereditament of which, on the date of service of a notice under the next following subsection in respect thereof, the annual value does not exceed the prescribed limit;
(b) in relation to any agricultural unit which, or part of which, is comprised in that land.

§ (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who is an owner-occupier of such a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, or of such an agricultural unit as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, and claims that—

(a) since the relevant date he has made reasonable endeavours to sell his interest in the hereditament, or in the agricultural unit, as the case may be, and
(b) he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if no part of the hereditament or unit were compromised in land of any of the descriptions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section,

may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase his interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the following provisions of this section.

§ (3) Where an owner-occupier has served notice on the appropriate authority under the last preceding subsection in respect of a hereditament or an agricultural unit, then unless—

(a) before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of service of that notice the appropriate authority serve on him a counter-notice in the prescribed form objecting to the notice, and
(b) if the objection is referred to the Lands Tribunal, the objection is upheld by the Tribunal, and (in the case of an agricultural unit) is so upheld otherwise than on grounds relating only to part of the affected area,

the authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire compulsorily under the appropriate enactment the interest of the owner-occupier in the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) the interest of the owner-occupier in the affected area, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in subsection (5) of this section.

§ (4) Where an owner-occupier has served notice on the appropriate authority under subsection (2) of this section in respect of an agricultural unit, and the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting thereto as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, and, on a reference to the Lands Tribunal, the objection is upheld by the Tribunal, but on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, the authority shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner-occupier in the remainder of that area compulsorily under the appropriate enactment, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on the date mentioned in the next following subsection.

§ (5) Any reference in this section to the date mentioned in this subsection shall be construed as follows, that is to say,—

(a) in a case where the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting to the notice served under subsection (2) of this section, and that objection has been referred to the Lands Tribunal but is not upheld by the Tribunal, or, in the case of an agricultural unit, is upheld by the Tribunal on grounds relating only to part of the affected area, the said date shall be taken to be such date as the Tribunal may direct;
(b) in any other case, the said date shall be taken to be the date on which the period of two months beginning with the date of service of the notice under subsection (2) of this section comes to an end.

§ (6) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interest) to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section.

§ (7) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule, in this section "owner-occupier", in relation to hereditament, means a person who—

(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament in right of a freehold interest therein or in right of a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, not less than three years remain unexpired, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof during the whole of the period of six months ending with that date; or
(b) occupied, in right of such a freehold interest or tenancy as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the whole or part of the hereditament during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service 227 by him of such a notice, the hereditament, or that part thereof, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

§ (8) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, in this section "owner-occupier", in relation to an agricultural unit, means a person who—

(a) occupies the whole of that unit, and has occupied it during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, or
(b) occupied the whole of that unit during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice,

and, at all times material for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection, as the case may be, has been entitled, in respect of the whole or part of that unit, to a freehold interest therein or to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which, on the date of service of the said notice, not less than three years remain unexpired.

§ (9) In this section—

§ "the relevant date", "the appropriate authority", "the appropriate enactment" and (subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interest) to this Act) "hereditament" have the same meanings as in the last preceding section;

§ "agricultural unit" means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes, including any dwelling-house or other building occupied by the same person for the purpose of farming the land;

§ "annual value" (subject to the provisions of the said Schedule) in relation to a hereditament means the value which, on the date of service of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, is shown in the valuation list as the rateable value of that hereditament, except that, where the rateable value differs from the net annual value, it means the value which on that date is shown in the valuation list as the net annual value thereof;

§ 'the prescribed limit' means such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by an order made by the Minister; and

§ 'the affected area', in relation to an agricultural unit, means so much of that unit as, on the date of service of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect of that unit, consists of land falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section.

§ (10) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) the definition of 'annual value' in subsection (9) shall have effect as if for any reference to a valuation list there were substituted a reference to a valuation roll; and
(b) for subsections (7) and (8) there shall be substituted the following subsections, that is to say,—

228

§ '(7) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule, in this section 'owner-occupier', in relation to a hereditament, means a person who—

(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament by virtue of his being the owner thereof or the lessee thereof under a lease the unexpired period of which, on the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, is not less than three years, and has so occupied the hereditament or that part thereof during the whole of the period of six months ending with that date; or
(b) occupied the whole or part of the hereditament, by virtue of his being the owner thereof or the lessee thereof under such a lease as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice, the hereditament, or that part thereof, having been unoccupied since the end of that period.

§ (8) Subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions as to purchase of other owner-occupiers' interests) to this Act, in this section 'owner-occupier', in relation to an agricultural unit, means a person who—

(a) occupies the whole of that unit, and has occupied it during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of the service by him of a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect thereof, or
(b) occupied the whole of that unit during the whole of a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice,

and, at all times material for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection, as the case may be, has been entitled, in respect of the whole or part of that unit, to the dominium utile therein or to the interest of the lessee under a lease thereof, being a lease the unexpired period of which, on the date of the service of the said notice, is not less than three years.'"

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: The position with regard to this new clause is that I gave the substance of it, including a detailed explanation of every subsection, on the last hearing. I have indicated to-day the important aspects of it. I do not think that it would be fair to Lordships if I repeated what I said on the last occasion, so I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say simply: I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

229

VISCOUNT GAGE
The Amendment in my name, which I have not moved, was designed to assist the agriculturist, and I think that this new clause, as I interpret it, covers all the points I wished to raise. I hope that I am right in thinking that the clause is mandatory and that a local authority have to purchase if land fulfils the conditions laid down or that, alternatively, they have to withdraw the planning proposals. I should also like to be certain that the method of assessing the compensation is exactly the same as the normal method of assessing compensation for compulsory purchase, except that there may be no compensation for disturbance. Where the initiative is taken by an applicant, I think it would be only right that he should have to forgo this compensation, but so far as the owner is concerned I am satisfied that in general the clause is correct.
This is an important clause, which has not been debated so far, except in a broad sense, and I think it is right that various other aspects of the clause should be considered. The clause and the new Schedule cover some eight pages of print and deal with the effects of blight. Blight arises from markings on maps which purport to show, with varying degrees of precision, that it is the intention of some authority at some time or other to carry out some project on the land. The markings are of different kinds, as your Lordships will see in Clause 34: you can designate. design, allocate, indicate or show—all these words are used, and the language has been explored to find words with slightly different shades of meaning, all of which can have some depreciating effect on the value of land. Ought we not to consider how these markings ever come on to the maps; what their value is, and how, when and if they cease to have any value, they will come off the map? I do not think we have any option but to consider these points, because the local authority has the power either of paying or of removing the marking, and this will often be a matter of considerably difficulty.
As an illustration let me take the question of municipal aerodromes. If a town is ever to have an aerodrome of the sort we know, surely we ought all the time to be preserving the land from building; because if all available land with the right contours in the vicinity of a large borough 230 is even partially developed, the compensation necessary to turn that into an aerodrome becomes so great as really to rule out the project. On the other hand, whether that aerodrome ever will come about depends on a whole series of difficult considerations, such as Government aviation policy, finance and technical developments, such as vertical assent and descent; and I suppose that we might some day have the whole present aerodrome requirements entirely altered and find that an aerodrome requires to be situated in a much more central position. You may be sterilising a large area of land and preventing any capital investment taking place on it for a long period of years. That is the sort of case that may arise on some fortuitous chance of an application to purchase by an owner-occupier. I certainly believe that before the scheme is amended, perhaps to withdraw a marking, there ought to be a full-scale inquiry, according to the procedure laid down in the Act, with evidence from expert witnesses. The whole matter should be gone into carefully.
But there are other much lesser matters where I should have thought the procedure for taking markings off by amending a scheme is altogether too cumbrous. There might be a water scheme which, as so often happens, begins in a small way with a requirement for a reservoir. But in the course of a few years it becomes a large scheme, with a requirement for quite a different reservoir, and the original one becomes obsolete. In the case of a small alteration like that, which is quite non-controversial, it would be cumbrous to have the marking taken away as an amendment to the scheme. The point I am making is that these matters may arise, as I have said, on the fortuitous chance that somebody may require a decision to be taken immediately. I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider whether it might be desirous to have an Amendment to this Bill to give the Minister power to dispense with some of the formalities of the amendment of the town planning schemes in small clear-cut cases, where there is obviously no controversy and where the markings have become superseded.
Then there is the matter of the sponsorship of these different markings. I have said that the county council acts not only on its own behalf, but as a sort of agency for Government Departments, statutory 231 undertakers, water boards and so on, who request the council to show these markings on maps. I am anxious to avoid a situation where a long wrangle might develop over which authority should be the acquiring authority and which should pay for the land. I do not wish to be pedantic, but I am sure my noble and learned friend will appreciate that in matters of finance local authorities have to satisfy not only their ratepayers, but also the district auditor, and we shall require legal sanction for any disbursements we may make. The sort of complication I foresee is where perhaps a road system has been altered because of circumstances over which the county council has no control—for instance, to provide a site for a power station or a large aerodrome, which can, of course, have considerable effect on the road system. I should hope that if there is any wrangling to be done it would be done before, and not after, the applications to purchase are made.
I apologise for taking up so much time with these perhaps extraneous observations, but I think there is a case for a fairly detailed examination by the Department into the whole question of these markings. As my noble and learned friend rather hinted in some previous remarks he made, I think that the local authorities, now that they have some sort of financial liability attached to them, will be a good deal more careful as to what they put on the map in future. I feel that possibly local authorities have been a little too lavish in putting these markings on maps. But, equally, I want to avoid the position where the development plans show little except such matters as nature reserves and water-gathering grounds, and where the real object of the map would be kept "under the counter" and the public would not be very well-informed of what the authority's plans were. I think that would give rise to just as great abuses as putting too much on the map. The ideal compromise between the two, in my view, is a matter of great difficulty. It is a problem, and I hope that, in the interests of town planning, it will not be shirked.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gage for that most interesting speech. On the first part of it, I agree with his understanding of the provisions of the Act. I 232 think he asked me specifically whether, if a farm is acquired, the compensation under the new clause will be assessed on the usual basis for compulsory purchase, with the exception that there would be no compensation for disturbance. The answer is that that view is correct. He will remember that I dealt with the question of severance on the last occasion.
With regard to my noble friend's more general points, I shall certainly convey them to the special attention of my right honourable friend. As he himself indicated, the question is a difficult one, and one has to draw the line between matters which obviously demand a public inquiry and those where formalities might be dispensed with. It is easy to say that A is on one side of the line and B is on the other side, but the no-man's land between the two is a matter which requires careful attention. I was also very interested in what my noble friend said about sponsorship. Again, I should like to discuss that with my right honourable friend, the Minister. I assure my noble friend that what he has said on these interesting points will be carefully examined. Whether it will be possible to do anything in this Bill I cannot say to-day, but I shall let him know when I have had a chance of seeing Mr. Brooke.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has a notice about Business which he would like to make, with the permission of the Committee.

§ House resumed.