GOVERNMENT PROPERTY PURCHASES AND VALUATIONS (Hansard, 3 April 1973)

§ LORD AVEBURY
asked Her Majesty's Government whether they will state how many cases have occurred since the beginning of 1972 in which the Government Departments have purchased properties for amounts greater than the district valuer's valuation; and whether they will give in each case the name and location of the property, the date of the

Name and Location of Property

1. 2. 3.

Bilsborrow Hall, near Preston, Lanes. A site of some 5,600 sq. yds. at Crosby Road, Northallerton, Yorks. A strip of land forming part of the garden of "Stockwood", Crawley Hill, Camberley, Surrey.

Date of Transaction

17th November 1972 (contracts exchanged); 31st January 1973 (completion). Currently with the Treasury Solicitor. 22nd March 1973 (completion).

District Valuer's Valuation

£40,000. £3,000. £1,200.

Agreed Consideration

£100,000. £3,475 (provisional subject to contract). £1,500.

Reasons for the Difference

This property was bought for use as Judges' Lodgings. An alternative solution would have cost more than the combined asking price and adaptation costs, and would have resulted in unacceptable delay. The land is adjacent to a Government building and was needed for a building extension. There were other potential buyers and the extra cost was insufficient to justify proceeding other than by agreement with the vendor. The land was required for road purposes. The extra cost resulted from inadvertent encroachment beyond the limits previously agreed. The amount involved was insufficient to justify proceeding other than by agreement with the owner.

§ LORD AVEBURY
asked Her Majesty's Government whether in cases where purchase of property is agreed at figures exceeding the district valuer's assessment specific approval will be sought from the Minister concerned.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has general responsibility for policy in land transactions by Government Departments. Whilst procedures adopted in particular Departments must depend on the wishes of the Ministers directly responsible for them, my right honourable friend does not feel that a general assurance of the kind the noble Lord has in mind would be appropriate. The firm policy of the Government is to pay open market value, except where there are overriding reasons to the contrary. The latter, by the nature of things,266WA transaction, the district valuer's valuation, the amount of the consideration agreed, and the reasons for the difference.

§ LORD SANDFORD
Information about transactions of this kind is unfortunately not available centrally in a conveniently collated form. I am making inquiries and will write to the noble Lord as soon as possible. In the meantime, details of purchases during the period in question by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment's Department are as follows:
arise infrequently and in exceptional circumstances, some of which may indeed warrant reference to Ministers. But Ministers must reserve the right to delegate to officials the authority to decide cases in which the amount of public money involved is relatively small or which do not raise any new points of principle.

Name and Location of Property
1.	2.	3.
Bilsborrow Hall, near Preston, Lanes.	A site of some 5,600 sq. yds. at Crosby Road, Northallerton, Yorks.	A strip of land forming part of the garden of "Stockwood", Crawley Hill, Camberley, Surrey.
Date of Transaction
17th November 1972 (contracts exchanged); 31st January 1973 (completion).	Currently with the Treasury Solicitor.	22nd March 1973 (completion).
District Valuer's Valuation
£40,000.	£3,000.	£1,200.
Agreed Consideration
£100,000.	£3,475 (provisional subject to contract).	£1,500.
Reasons for the Difference
This property was bought for use as Judges' Lodgings. An alternative solution would have cost more than the combined asking price and adaptation costs, and would have resulted in unacceptable delay.	The land is adjacent to a Government building and was needed for a building extension. There were other potential buyers and the extra cost was insufficient to justify proceeding other than by agreement with the vendor.	The land was required for road purposes. The extra cost resulted from inadvertent encroachment beyond the limits previously agreed. The amount involved was insufficient to justify proceeding other than by agreement with the owner.