PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
STANDING COMMITTEE D
•
OFFICIAL REPORT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
THURSDAY,
27th
NOVEMBER,
1958
First Sitting
CONTENTS
CLAUSE I, under consideration when the Committee
adjourned till Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958, at halfpast Ten o'clock.
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
NINEPENCB NET
t
"
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of
Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are
requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied, but any corrections which Members
desire in the bound volumes should be marked in this Report.
The copy of the Report containing such corrections must be
returned to the Editor's room, House of Commons,
not loter than
Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958
SlRICT ADHERENCE TO lHIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY
FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF
mE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS'
IN STANDING COMMITTEES.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HER MAJESTY'S STATIUNEIlY OFFlCP
To be purchased from
423 Oxford Street, LONDON. w.l':
York House, Kingsway, LONDON, w.c.2
Ba CasUe Street, EDINBURGH, 2
J09 St. Mary Street, CARDIff
39 King Street, MANCHESTER, 2
Tower Lane, BRISTOL, 1
2 Edmund Street, BIRMINGHAM, 3
80 Chichester Street, BELFAST
or from any Bookseller
PRINTED IN OI\BAT
BRITAIN
Town and COlmlry
27 NOVEMBER 1958
Planning Bill
.2
The Committee consisted 01 the 10Uowing Members: .
Sir Robert Grimslon (Chairman)
·Balniel, Lord (Hertford)
·Bevins, Mr. J. R. (Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local
Govern~ent)
.
Blggs-Davlson, Mr. John (Ch.gwelf)
·Blenkinsop, Mr. A. (Newcastle-uponTyne, East)
.Brooke Mr Henry (Minister of Housing
and 'Loc~l Government)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cole, Mr. Norman (Bedfordshire, South)
·Cortield, Mr. F. V. (Gloucestershire,
South)
du Cann, Mr. Edward (Taunton)
·Ellioll, Mr. R. W. (Newcastle-uponTyne, North)
·Errington, Sir Eric (Aldershot)
Fitch, Mr. Alan (Wigan) .
Gibson, Mr. C. W. (Clapham)
Griffiths, Mr. David (Rother Valley)
Gurden, Mr. Harold (Birmingham, Selly
Oak)
·Harrison, Colonel J. H. (Eye)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
·Holt, Mr. Arthur (Bolton, West)
Howell, Mr. Denis (Birmingham, All
Saints)
Irvine, Mr. A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hilf)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Johnson,
Mr.
Eric
(Manchester,
Blackley)
·Lindgren, Mr. G. (Wel/ingborough)
.MacColl, Mr. James (Widnes)
.McInnes, Mr. James (Glasgow, Centraf)
.Macpherson, Mr. Niall (Joint UnderSecretary of State for Scotland)
Mahon, Mr. Simon (Bootle)
•
. I d M P ' k (La k)
Malt an,
r. attic
nar
• Mitchison, Mr. G. R. (Kettering)
Morris, Mr. Percy (Swansea, West)
Nicolson, Mr. Nigel (Bournemouth, East
and Christchurch)
·Nugent, Mr. G. R. H. (Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation)
·Page, Mr. Graham (Crosby)
·Powell, Mr. J. Enoch (Wolverhampton,
South·West)
Price, Mr. David (Eastleigh)
·Probert, Mr. Arthur (Aberdare)
Ramsden, Mr. James (Harrogate)
·Ross, Mr. William (Kilmarnock)
Silverman, Mr. Julius (Birmingham,
Aston)
·Skeffington, Mr. Arthur (Hayes and
Harlington)
·Sparks, Mr. J. A. (Acton)
Temple, Mr. John M. (City of Chester)
·Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin (North
Angus and Mearns)
·Wilkins, Mr. W. A. (Bristol, South)
·Willis, Mr. E. G. (Edinburgh, East)
• Added in respect of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Mr. Odling
}
Mr. Rollert James
27101
Committee
Clerks.
A2
3
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
STANDING COMMITTEE 0
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 27th November, /958
[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
10.30 a.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local
Government and Minister for Welsh
AlIai", (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to
Planning Bill
4
. 2. For the purpose of dividing the global
value there shall be ascertained in accordance
with the provisions of subsection (2) of section
fifty-one of the Act of 1947 the value of the
globat area and the value of the relevant land.
The values so ascertained are referred to in
this Schedule as the existing use values
respectively of the global area and of the
relcvant land.
3. The value of the relevant land for the
purposes of this Act shall be such proportion
of the global value as the existing use value
of the relevant land bears to the existing use
value of the global area.
move,
4. If the relevant land is not wholly within
anyone global area, the foregoing paragraphs
of this section shall apply to each part of the
relevant land within one global area as they
apply to the relevant land.
That during the proceedings on the Town
and Country Ptanning Bill the Committeee
do meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at half·
past Ten o'clock.
The Chairman: I am obliged to the
hon. and learned Member. The new
Schedule comes in as well.
Mr. G. R, Mitchison: Unfortunately.
Sir Robert. this is one of the things to
which we cannot object.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1.---<GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION.)
Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move. in
page 2. line 3, after" apply", to insert:
The Chainnan: Before I call the first
Amendment, I would remind the Committee Ihat there is a Financial Resolution
in connection with the Bill. I do not
propose to direct that it should be read,
but if Members of the Committee desire
to see it, they will find copies on the
Table. I should also like to call attention to the fact that adequate notice
should be given of Amendments and that
as a general rule I do not propose to call
manuscript Amendments.
There is a very large number of con·
sequential Amendments. The first two
Amendments can be discussed together.
but there are so many consequential
Amendments that I do not propose to
worry the Committee with indicating
them all. When the time comes, they will
be obvious. If that is agreeable to the
hon. and learned Member for Kettering
(Mr. Mitchison), I suggest that he or
one of his hon. Friends should speak to
Ihe first Amendment; and the other
consequential Amendments will either
stand or fall together.
.. and, as regards the said subsection (2), for
the purposc of dividing global value in
accordance with the provisions of the Schedule
(Division of global values) to this Act to.
Mr. MitchisoD: Before the first
Amendment is moved. Sir Robert, may
I ask whether we could also refer to the
inew Schedule-{Division of global
value) :
I. The global value of a global area shall
be assessed in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.
As you have indicated, Sir Robert. we
are discussing at the same time the second
Amendment, in page 2, line 8. at end
insert :
.. as applied to the global area and divided in
accordance with the Schedule (Division of
global value) to this Act.
(3) In this Part of this Act the expression
, global area' means, in relation to any of the
relevant land in any of the areas mentioned
in the next following subsection, that area,
and in relation to any other relevant land or
part thereof, thc area of all the land
authorised to be acquired with the relevant
land or part; and the expression 'global
value' means the value of a global area
assessed in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
(4) The said areas are(a) an area defincd in the current devel,?pmcnt plan as an area of comprehenSive
development ~
(b) an area which, by an order under the
New Towns Act. 1946 (in the fonn in which,
whether as originally made or as subsequently varied, the order is in force on the
date of service of the notice to treat), is for
the time being designated as the site of a
new town; and
(c) an area to which a town development
scheme under Part 11 of the Housing and
Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957,
relates. being a scheme which is in operation
on the date of service of the notice to
treat".
S
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
The object of these Amendments
is to
Planning Bill
6
it is prohibited, the owner receives compensa-
tion for the. loss of the vaJ~e of a pro~ab~lity
floating demand ~etthng upon. his piece
of land. . . . In practice where thIS process
is repeated indefinitely over a large area the
sum of the probabilities as estimated greatly
I regard this floating value to be I would exceeds the actuaJ possibilities. because the
be grate~ul.
' . float' limited as it is to aetually 0Ct;urring
demands. can only settle on a proportion of
The example 'Of a large area of un. the whole area."
deal with the valuation prob1em created
by what is called. floating value If I
.
m~y h~ve the forbearance of the Corn·
ffilttee m my. endeavour to set out What
of the
developed land being acquired at the
boundary of a highly developed area
offers perhaps the clearest and best
example of this matter of floating value.
One then supposes that t·he area of un·
developed land is made up of pieces of
land belongmg to se"arate owners.. In a
case of that kmd, 10 endeaVOUrIng to
carry out the task of valuation of the
There is. therefore, the Committee went
on to point out. over-valuation if the
piecemeal method is adopted.
.
The Committee then proceeded to
quote from the evidence of a professional
body which it had heard and ~o indicate
its acceptance of the evidence which that
body had offered. Part of the evidence
read like this:
land, two quite separate methods can !be
adopted. One can either proceed piece~
meal and value each owner's land in tihe
. lb' b
~ea. or. aI tematlve y, one can egm. y
valumg the area as a ~hole and tre~t~ng
the global sum then arnved at as a cellmg
and dividing up the global value in fair
P roportion as between the different
h
.
. Th e resu ICS 0 f a~p Iymg t ese . two
methods of valuation are entirely
different. The difference is explained
by this element of floating value (The
I'·
·
I
aggre~ate 0 f t he plecem~a va uatlons,
applymg the first method, IS greater than
.. One of the reasons for this over-valuation
is th.at when any single picce o~ l'.lnd is being
conSidered, the prospect that bUlldmg development may come its way and none other must
be taken into aecount. . .. When eonsidered
togcther or . globally' cach and every unit
cannot in faet secure this 'floating value' to
itself. because .th~t would assume that the
demand fo!" bu~ldmg land would settle upon
all the UOltS sImultaneously. Such demand.
however. is in fact neither' global' nor simullaneous; it settles upon different pieces of
land at different dates. Hence the 'global"
method of valuation eannot assume. at the
date. ~~ which the valua.ton is made. the
POSSibility that demand WIll settle upon all
the units at that date, Therefore the 'global'
valuation must be less than the aggregate of
the individual valuations when eonsidered
the global value when applying the
second method. We think-we have the
authority of the Uthwatt Committee t.o
separately."
In paragraph 28 of the Final Report
these words appear:
owners.
support us-that the second method IS..
whcre the land belongs to a number
the fairer of the two. It is a point of of ~~ners. the aggregate of values claimable
serious criticism of the Bill that it resorts by individual owners w,hen s~parately .assessed.
to the extent that it does to the method owing to the factor of floatlOg v'.llue , greatly
·
1 I '
excceds the real loss of the claImants taken
o f plecemea va uatlOn.
as a group:'
It would be wrong for me to burden
This matter of floating value is neither
the Committee with unduly long extracts
from the proceedings of the Uthwatt
Expert Committee on Compensation and
Betterment. but the matter is so
succinctly and clearly. dealt with in that
Report that. I hope It Will be thought
worth while If I read some extracts fro,:"
the Report of the Committee upon th,s
point, Ibecause they illustrate the
difference between us so clearly.
In paragraph 24 of the Final Report
(Cmd. 6386 of 1942), the following words
appear:
a figment of the imagination nor a matter
of small compass and importance. A
very large sum of money is involved in
the difference which is comprised in the
floating value and the consideration of
it had an immensely important effect
upon the recommendations of the Uthwatt
Committee. For example, it governed
the determination of the Committee that
the process of compensating owners of
interes~s of land for their loss of develo,,ment fights should proceed from the baSIS
of a global sum. the £300 million. That
.. Potential value is necessarily a 'floati.ng
value; and it is impossible to predict with
certainty where l.he 'float' will settle as sites
are actually reqUlr.ed for purposes of develol?ment. When a pIece of undeveloped land IS
compulsorily acquired, or development upon
method was reso~ted. to. as disti~ct from
the method of pIecemeal valuatIOn, pre~
cisely because of the importance which
the Committee attached to this element
.
of Aoatmg value.
7'
Tow~ and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[M R. IRvtNE.]
It was part of the Committee's recommendation, in paragraph 79, that compensation ./
.. should be assessed for the whole country
as a single sum . .. the amount of such
sum . . . to be divided among cJaimants in
accordance with the value of the development rights attached to their lands ...".
The reason the Committee gave for this
was that if piecemeal valuation, the only
other alternative, was resorted to,
the element of • floating value' would be
included in each valuation and more would
be paid than the rights acquired are in fact
worth to any purchaser. . .. The evidence
given to us confinned this view that piecemeal valuation would not produce a fair
sum."
U
I ask the Committee to note that quite
explicit and unqualified finding of this
expert and distinguished Committee. The
Committee went on;
.. Our own view is that between two and
three times too much would be paid if piccc~
meal valuation formed the basis of ,compensation and that a nearer approximation is not
possible."
There, upon the record, is a carefullyformulated finding by an expert Committee, on the basis of professional and
expert evidence, that to resort to piecemeal valuation in a matter of this kind
leads to gross overpayment. Our view
on this side of the Committee is that to
much too great an extent the method of
valuation to which the present Bill resorts
is a method of piecemeal valuation.
The method, as the Committee knows
is to value the relevant interest, which i;
defined in Clause 43 (2) of the Bill as
.. the interest acquired in pursuance of"
the notice to treat. We regard the result
of the application of the method proposed
in the Bill as being an overpayment.
The Government have themselves
acknowledged the importance of this
element of floating value in their approach to the problem. I ask the Committee to have regard to the wording of
paragraph 15 of Cmnd. 562, in which the
matter of compensation when land which
is taken is in an area of comprehensive
development is dealt with. What the
White Paper says is this;
.. Here the whole area is to be replanned
and remodelled to a greater or less degree;
the road pattern may well be completely
altered and the distribution of land USes in
the area would almost certainly be changed. It
would be quite wrong for the acquiring
Planning Bill
8
authority to buy one person's land cheap
because it is to become (say) part of a road,
and the next person's land dear because it is
to become (say) part of a departmental store.
The solution set out in the clause is that in
valuing the land account is to be taken of
the new uses envisaged for the area, but the
scheme itself and the proposed. distribution
of uses is to be ignored."
10.45 a.m.
My point in drawing attention to that
is that the Government in their treatment
of compensation for the acquisition of
land in an area of comprehensive development are recognising the all important
point that there is an element of floating
value affecting the valuation of each piece
of land in an area of comprehensive
development. Each piece of land has the
prospect that it may be used for the the
most valuable class of development in
the area, which is a prospect possessing
some pecuniary value. In this connection.
they recognise the unfairness of applying
anything other than what one might call
a global method of determining values;
they recognise that floating value must
be taken into account in determining the
prices to be paid as between different
owners. But they do not take the further
logical step of taking that floating value
into account in assessing the appropriate
price to he paid by the acquiring
authority for the area as a whole.
In conclusion. I wish to point out that
the question raised by these Amendments,
which is an important one, is simply a
question of fair valuation. It has nothing
to do, in case anybody should suspect us
of this, with the matter of recovering
betterment. Some of us think that to get
away from the admitted objections which
exist to a two-price system by resorting to
a one-price system-the highest priceis an unworthy and anti-social treatment
of this problem. But that is not the issue
raised here. What we recommend is to
take the global value of the whole area
to be acquired, and then to attribute to
the relevant land that proportion of the
global value which the existing use value
of the relevant land bears to the existing
use value of the global area. That seems
to us to be a sensible and practical
method of dealing with this matter and
of ensuring that there is not a gross overpayment of this element of floating value
to owners of land.
Sir CoJin Tbomton·Kemsley: I am
SUtlprised that no one has risen to support
9
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
the hon. and learned Member for Liver.
I had
pool. Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine).
hoped that we should hear a little more
of the intentions of the movers of this
Amend~ent. which is not readily cornprehendlble. To make sure that I have
understood it. I will say what I think it
means and then deal with soine practical
points that I think arise from it. I think
the global area in an area of comprehen.
sive development. or in the designated
area of a new town. or in a new town
scheme in Scotland means the whole of
that area. Elsewhere it means all that
land which is to be acquired compulsorily
with the relevant land. The effect of
these Amendments, together with the proposed new Schedule, seems to me to require a complete new valuation first of
all. of the global area, and sec~ndly, of
the relevant land, so that the compensalion payable may be assessed in accordance with paragraph 3 of the new
Schedule. That is perhaps telescoping it
a little but that is what I think it means
and I 'have given a good deal of atten:
tion to it.
.
..
.
If that IS so, It IDvolves an Immense
task of valuatIOn. I speak here as a
valuer. ,and one who has had to do a
great many valuations under the Silkin
Act and is not unfamiliar with problems
of valuing land in urban and rural areas.
It means that in appropriate cases the
whole of the value of the real property
within the designated area. the whole of
the new town, would have to be valued.
if the acquiring authority, which would
no doubt be the New Town Corporation.
requires to take an acre or two of land
for the extension of a school in a new
town.
If this Amendment is incorporated in
the Bill, the whole of the new town would
have to be valued. A new town cannot
be valued in terms of so much an acre;
one cannot say it is worth £100 £200
£1,000 or £10.000 an acre; one 'has t';
arrive at a complete detailed valuation.
That is the only way in which the valua.
tion of land can proceed. It means
that every house in the new town has to
be valued; that the small shops. the
department stores. the cinemas, the post
offices. the farm land and every kind of
hereditament have to be valued 0
c~nnot d~ that by reference to a;'y va~:
atlOn WhlOh you !have already. It cannot
be done, for. example,
reference to the
gross valuauons for ratlOg purposes, be-
br
Planning Bill
10
cause those valuations are for one ['ur.
pose. One has to find the market value
for existing use purposes of each individual hereditament before the owner of
that one acre of land for the school is
going to have his compensation assessed.
. .
There are sImilar problems. though not
so great. ID the case of an area of corn·
prehenslve redevelopment. These areas,
as the. Committee well knows. are very
large In many cases. T1hey contam not
only streets and streets of houses, but
often a row of shops. the corrier shop,
several publIc houses. schools and so on.
The whole of that area of comprehensive
redevelopment has got to be assessed
be~ore we can get our glo~al value of
eXlstlDg use. I thlOk that IS creatlOg a
task which is far greater than any which
was put upon the lImIted class of valuers
ID thIS country by the Lloyd George land
tax proposals of 1909 and 1910. and ~ar
greater than was thrown on the machlOery of valuatIOn by the SllklD Act. We
are throwing UPO!'1 them an enormous
task, and for very lIttle purpose. because
in so many cases the property to be taken
in pursuance of the compulsory purchase
order is quite a small one.
Take again that case I have mentioned
of the smalI area of land required for
the extension of a school.
That will
almost certainly be in an undeveloped
area. but it might well be in an area of
land which is .programmed under the
development plan for housing development. The effect of this would be that
land which has a high building value is
going to be taken at its existing use value
-that is to say. probably at its farm land
value-for purposes which may well be
the buildin~ of houses by the local auth~­
nty acqUlrm~ It. I do not thIDk that IS
fair. and qUIte honestly, I do not think
that the ho~. and learned Member an~
other members opposite who. suppo~ thIS
Amendment "(ould thmk It IS falf el!her.
If the. purpose for which the acqUlrlOg
authonty has served notice to treat upon
an owner of a small or a large area of
farm .land IS to bUIld houses, and. if the
bUlldmg of houses IS allowed ID the
develop',fient plan. why should that owner
be depnved of the development value .of
hIS land for purposes m accordance WIth
the Act?
Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged' to the
hon. Member. I have been listening care·
fully to !his interesting speech. and we
11'
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.]
shall have something to say about it
later. ·1 think ,he said something just now
whioh was really' a slip of the tongue. He
suggested that we should have to take
the piece of land at its existing use value,
and 'by itself that sounded as if there
would ,be no allowance for a develOpment value. I am sure he did not mean
that.
Sir C. Thomton.Kemsley: I wonder
if I could ask the right ,hon. and learned
Gentleman w,hether ,I have understood t,he
schedule correctly.
Mr. MitchisoD : Before the hon. iMember does that, may I assure him that I
listened to his description of the Amendmentsand the Sahedule and I thought
that every word of it was correct. I
think that what he said afterwards ,was a
slip of the tongue, and I only correct it
because these things occasionally get
taken up and misunderstood. J may add
that 'I am not a Privy Co~ncillor.
Sir C. ThomtoD.KemsIey : ,I hope !!hat
that is an intelligent anticipation, 'because
we ·who 'have sat opposite the hon. and
learned Gentleman on so many occasions
hope that that happy elevation will he
postponed only so long as may be. I am
bound to add that I hope it .will he a
long time bmore the party opposite again
comes into office.
Mr. Mitchison : This is a matter, fortunately, in Which we need only look at
existing use values.
Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley : The existing
use value of the 'hon. and learned Gentleman is extremely high, as we all know.
May I return to the case of the owner of
farm land ,which is allowed by the development plan for the purpose of building houses and is to be acquired in
pursuance of a notice to treat for housing
purposes. 'My feeling. and that of my
hon. Friends and of ~he Government, is
tbat that owner should be compensated
at the market value of his land, 'bearing in
mind its potential value for the purpose
allowed by the plan. T,hat is not, as I
understand it, in accord with what is proposed in terms of the Second Schedule,
where it is quite clear that the value is
to be the value of ohat interest, scaled
down, if you like, by the application of
the ratio proposals, but the value {or existing use purposes. It states that quite
Planning Bill
12
clearly in its reference to the 1947 Act,
Section 51 (2) of which lays down clearly
the existing use value for what we used
to call Third Schedule purposes.
Mr. Mitchison : J think the hon. Gentle·
man would be wise to look at paragraplh
3 of the proposed new Schedule, as well
as that which he .has mentioned.
Sir C. ThomtoD·Kemsley: I apologise
for taking all this time, 'but we must
understand what we are being asked to
vote upon.
Mr. Mitchison : We all agree.
Sir C. Thomton-Kemsley : ,Para;graph 3
of the new Schedule simply says:
.. The value of the relevant land for the
purposes of this Act shall be such proportion
of the glob.~l value as the existing use
value . . .
Mr. A. Blenkinsop : The" proportion".
Sir C. Thomton·Kemsley: I su'bmit
that existing use value of agricultural land
is an agricultural use and does not contain any element of potential building
land.
Mr. James MacCoIl: My .hon. and
learned Friend ,having failed to convince
the hon. Gentleman of rhe point, perhaps
I might try. The first paragraph of the
new Schedule deals with the ascertain·
ment of ,the global value, which has to
be done in accordance with the provisions
of this Measure, not the 1947 Act. That
is the first point.
Mr. Mitchison: And that is the point
of all tbe subsequent Amendments.
11.0 a.m.
Mr. MacColl: Yes, but in the other
point which he quoted be was dealing
only with the proportionate allocation of
the full value as between the different
hereditaments involved in a global
value.
Sir C. Thomton-Kemsley: May I pass
on : I really want to see these things in
print and I hope that that point will be
developed later. I would like to pass
to the speech of the hon. and learned
Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)
wbo spoke a great deal about the Uthwatt
Report and its definition of tloating
value. But land which is to be acquired
compulsorily is, ex hypothesi, land upon
wbich tloating value has already settled.
Town and Country
Planning Bill
27 NOVEMBER 1958
13
14
There is no element of float about it be- should be attached to a wider area and
cause the acquiring authority knows then to divide that increased value
what it wants and why it wants it. There- between lhe separate hereditaments so
fore, the float has already settled.
that each hereditament does not attract
a wholly mistaken added value which, in
May I remind the hon. and learned practice.. at the end of the day, would
Member that the Uthwatt Report was not attach to it. That was suggested by
made in 1942 and preceded what we the Ulhwatt Report some time ago. I
know as the Silkin Act of 1947.
The should have Ihought that even to those
effect of the positive planning of land with only 'a modest understanding of this
introduced by that Act was to give pre- problem this would have been clear.
cision to land values and very largely to
llhe hon. Member for North Angus and
eliminate the element of float.
The
decision which is given by the develop- Mearns, hav,ing been knocked off his
ment plan, which has largely revolu- perch on the earlier issue, then tries to
tionised values in many cases by allow- argue that the Ulhwatt Report was the
ing values to be varied, has reversed the first proposal in planning, and tried to
whole trend of values. But it has also argue that, following the 1947 Act, we
had certainty with regard to values;
given precision to land values which did
whereas, prior to that date, there was no
not exist when Uthwatt was considering suoh cerlainty. But this is surely a
this large and somewhat complex ques- matter wholly of degree. It is not true
tion.
to say lhat there was no planning before
The Bill provides that market value the Uthwatt Report, just as it is not true
shall be the value as determined and in- to say that there is certainty with regard
fluenced by the development plan, and to values of the separate hereditaments at
I cannot think it right that owners of the present time. We must accept the fact
land which is to be acquired compul- that there may be greater certainty as
sorily should not be able to reap the regards the wider area, but the argument
value of that land for that purpose or, in ·the Uthwatt Report is as true today'
alternatively, the value of that land in as it was then; namely, that if we grant
the open market for purposes allowed these extra values on the hypothesis that
the extra value allowed on each hereditaby the planners.
ment is right. then we are giving a wholly
For that reason alone I oppose this unwarranted additional benefit to the
Amendment, although I oppose it individual hereditament holders. llhat
primarily, as 1 said earlier in my speech, seems to me to be as true today as when.
for the larger reason that it is setting a the Uthwatt Report was compiled.
quite impossible task-an impracticahle,
Hon. Members opposite have to justify
technical task-of valuation for all the
this additional charge, wholly unwarranted,
valuers who would be involved.
which w,ill be imposed presumably on the
Mr. Blenkinsop: I feel that the hon. local authority concerned, and upon all
Memher for North Angus and Mearns those who pay rates. This extra sum of
(Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has almost money is not justified by any of ~he
been dealing with some subject other than criteria which we have put forward. and
that which we are discussing this morning. therefore, we shall be very interested to
He started, perhaps quite properly, by hear from hon. Members opposite what
discussing some of the technical and other kind of argument ,they can put
administrative problems which might forward. That is not for the addition of
a,ise and it is right that we should give market values but for the particular way
consideration to them; but they are not ,in which this market value is being calcuthe deciding factors. He then discussed lated to ~he gross and unnecessary
matters which, to me at least, suggest that advantage of great numbers of people
he has not laked very carefully at the and to the very considerable disad vantage.
of ,the local authority and all those who
Amendment.
My hon. Friends have attempted, 1 contribute to it.
Therefore, I intervene in the hope that
hope with some success, to make clear
that the Amendment does not propose some other hon. Members opposite will
that we should do away with the concept address themselves to that major point
of market values. It is attempting to deal of principle which, to me, is raised by
rather with the point that" market value" this Amendment. I hope they will find.
15
Town" and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BLENKINsoP.]
it possible to accept it because in a sense
it is accepting the broader proposals of
the Bill and is attempting to make them
fair in their incidence.
Mr. Brooke: A Minister enters with
some diffidence into these battles initiated
by learned men. I do not know if I am
correct, although I believe that I am,
in thinking that the majority of hon.
Members find the subjects dealt with
in this Bill somewhat difficult. If so,
let me say at once that I belong to their
number, and, therefore, those who are
professionally qualified will, I hope, forgive me when J intervene in our discussions to try to reduce to the simplest
essentials the issues which are before us.
even if, in so doing, I may use unprofessional language.
Also, I propose in dealing with these
important Amendments to try to address
myself to what their effect would be from
1958 onwards rather than to relating
their justification or otherwise in terms of
the Uthwall Report which was published
some fifteen years before we had a comprehensive system of planning in the 1947
Act.
1b.is series of Amendments, as I understand it, provide that the market value
is. first of all. assessed 00 the whole of
the area comprised in this scheme which
is to be called .. the global area". That
seems a simple proposition. But I have
searched these Amendments and have
not been able to find-although there
may be some definition somewhere-how
this global market value is to be assessed.
What one is doing is not buying land
but buying interest in land, and one has
to ask what interest is to be assumed in
the global area.
Mr. Milchison: I hope the Minister
will forgive me, but the Amendment
which we are discussing is the first of
a number on the Order Paper and I
suppose that, strictly speaking, I ought
to have put down another thirty or forty
Amendments to carry the process forward through the Bill. But my point is
this. We apply a method in the Bill to
the global area rather than to the relevant land, and if the Minister finds
difficulty in understanding the method
in the Bill he is not alone.
Planning Bill
16
Mr. Brooke: If one is trying to get the
market value of the global area, one must
make certain inquiries about the land.
It may be that the hon. and learned
Gentleman the Member for Kellering
(Mr. Mitchison) thinks of pUlling down
further Amendments later, but what I
have said is fundamental even to this first
pair of Amendments. Let us assume that
we can arrive at a global market value
on some assumption or other.
The case for these Amendments, as I
understand the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr.
A. J. lrvine) is that unless some plan of
this sort is adopted, a separate valuation
on a market value basis of each element
of the global area-that is, each part of
it-is likely to add up in the sum to a
considerably greater amount than one
single valuation. So far as I know, there
is no justification whatever for that
assumption.
11.15 a.m,
The 'hon. and learned Gentleman spoke
of floating value. We have. in fact, made
some provision in Clause 7 for what
remains of floating value, but the whole
conception of floating value must, I submit, be thought out afresh since the Uthwall Commillee reported. We are dealing
with quite a different situation, because
we now have a comprehensive planning
system.
Perhaps we may carry the analysis of
this a little further, because I am quite
sure that what the 'hon. and learned
Gentleman wants to do is not only to protect public authorities but to see that
there is reasonable justice done between
one owner and another. Judged by that
test, this series of Amendments seems to
break down entirely. If I ,have understood them wrongly~because I am a
simple man-no doubt, thon. Members
will explain it to me, but so far as I
can ascertain, this global market value,
if it is ascertainable-and I ,have pointed
out that one will have to make some unknown assumption in order to get at it
at all-is then to be divided amongst all
the individual plots of land in the global
area according to the proportion that the
existing use value of each plot bears to
the existing use value of the whole global
area.
Let us first get it clear that the results
that will 'be obtained .from that bear no
Planning Bill
27 NOVEMBER 1958
18
relation to market value at all, and I do
I do not believe that hon. Members
not think Ihat they could be defended by opposite wish to achieve that result.
any clear-minded person. If I am right Therefore, in the circumstances, I humbly
-and, judging by the way in which the suggest that they should think out this
hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill series of Amendments again, rather than
has been nodding ,his head, I have not press to a Division a set of proposals
misrepresented the way in which this that, quite frankly, do not make sense
would operate-it means Ihat the owner or justice.
of a plot within the global area-a plot
Mr. Mitcbison: I would never say
that was fully developed, with some substantial industrial building on it, for ex- that on as complicated a matter as this,
ample, and a .plot that, ~herefore, had a we get an Amendment quite right, but
high existing use value but no develop- I would say that we have made a much
ment value at all, would, under this series better attempt at it than the right hon.
of Amendments, receive a high payment Gentleman appears to have understood.
for development value; whereas the In relation to all this property we are
owner of another plot, perhaps an adjoin- dealing with two things-and I agree at
ing plot, that was undeveloped, but once that the definition, though logically
vacant, and had little existing use value, clear. is not, in practice, quite as easy
or even no existing use value, but had, to draw as all that. One is what we call
nevertheless, a sulbstantial value for de- the existing use value; the other is the
,velopment, would, under this series of development value.
Amendments, receive practically nothing.
What this Amendment tries to do is to
. I do not see how that can ever be meet a difficulty about the development
defended, except in a topsy-turvy world, value that was very clearly stated in the
because we do not need to pay additional Uthwatt Report, but which has been at
money in respect of development value the root of all the difficulties about this
to people whose property has no develop- matter ever since they first arose-and
ment value at all, and I must submit to that was a long time ago. I am not even
the Committee that this scheme would sure that, logically, it is connected with
not merely fail in its object-because the planning, but planning, of course, was in
object of protecting a public authority existence at the time of the Uthwatt
against paying far more than is necessary Report, and it was in relation to that, and
is already secured by the Bill-but would to the Town and Country Planning Act of,
do grave injustice as between one owner I think, 1932, then in force, that the
Committee stated the problem in its
and another.
broadest and most general terms.
I could prolong my speech by pointWhat the Committee then said is just
ing out that, under ~his arrangement, so
far as I can judge, no case would ever get as true now. If it was wrong then, it is
settled at all under Ihis arrangement. I wrong now; if it was right then, it is
am quite sure that the hon. and learned right now, and it really has nothing
Gentleman would not wish to take away whatever to do with the state of planning
the existing safeguards that the individual at the moment.
The point is a very easy one. Suphas of arguing as to the value of his
interest and, if need be, of taking the posing a council has to buy an area of
matter to arbitration but, of course, in land just outside the town-and that is
tms case, it would have to be open to each about the commonest case---{lverysingle
individual owner to argue, not only about owner of a piece of land there would
the value of his land but about the exist- claim, as a matter of justice-planning or
ing use value of every other bit of land no planning, and quite apart from any
in the area, and about the global value of legislation-that the most valuable and
the whole. Therefore, a public authority desirable part of the development intended
that, presumably, wished to have the land by the council would fall on his land.
in order to get on with a school building Then, in order to do justice between him
or something like that, would find that, and other owners, we would have to assess
thanks to the activities of the Labour the probability of its falling on his land as
Party, a situation had been produced in distinct from that of the other owners.
which none of these questions could ever
This is a pure question of practice.
get settled.
After modestly disclaiming any expert
17
Town and Country
19
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.]
knowledge, the right hon. Gentleman
said that there was not a shadow of
evidence to support the conclusion arrived
at by the expert Uthwatt Committee.
That conclusion, simply, was that, in
practice, the total of those properies
assessed over the area that a council
wishes to acquire always exceeds what
lbe ",lIowance would be if we were dealing with the whole of the area that the
council desired to acquire. It is highly
significant, particularly in view of what
the Minister of Housing and Local Government has told us, that this conclusion
was arrived at entirely, as I see it, by
considering expert evidence to that eflect.
I direct the right bono Gentleman's
attention once more to what my hon.
and learned friend lbe Member for Edge
Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out in
moving the Amendment. 1t was the
evidence submitted by one of the professional bodies, and it was acted on, and
followed in this conclusion. Moreover,
one must remember that the Uthwatt
Committee itself corusisted, not merely of
two very distinguished judges-they were
not both judges at that time, of course,
but have been since-but also of two
highly-expert chartered surveyors. There
was no dispute about this part of the
report-they all accepted it.
We therefore get a report to the
Uthwatt Committee by a professional
body-and obviously, from the context,
it means, not a body of lawyers but of
surveyors. In addition, we have two
more members put on the Committee as
experts, and we have two digtinguished
lawyers-and then we get the right hon.
Gentleman. on this purely practical question, saying that there is not a shred of
evidence to support the conclusion that
the Uthwatt Committee reached.
None is so blind as he who will not
see. If one does not read the Report of
the Uthwatt Committee, but only some
Departmental papers on such matters as
may have reached one recently, one may
be in a position of saying that there is
no expert evidence, but I take leave to
contradict the right hon. Gentleman.
There is the highest possible expert
evidence, and the problem rwwards which
thalt evidence was directed is exactly that
which we now have to consider; and to
talk: about planning, or the extent of
Planning Bill
20
planning making any fundamental difference to the character of the problem
and the possibilities of its solution is to
misunderstand hoth the position when
the Uthwatt Committee reported, and the
relation of the degree of planning legislation to this question, which is really a
simple and fundamental one and, as I
say. a question of practice.
I come now Ito an even broader question. What we are here for today is to
try to be fair about bargains in connection with the compulsory acquisition of
land, but we must be fair to both sides.
We are considering the hypothesis in the
1919 Act of a willing seller and a willing
buyer, and Ithere .is no reason, every time
we find a conflicting interest between the
Itwo--or a difference of position, jf I may
put it that ,way-to pick out the individual seller, and to say, "In ,this case
I ,have to be unfair either to the individual
seller or to the buying authority. Once
I get that question, I come down on lbe
side of the individual seller every time."
I cannot think that that is the right
approach.
I entirely agree that we want to lean
in favour of certain groups of people,
because. as my right hon. Friend the
Leader of the Opposition said in speaking
on the Address in reply to the Gracious
Speech, there have been injustices. and·
we want to see those injustices corrected.
But we must not decide every question
simply on the principle that we want to
see what is fair by seeing what appears
to be fair to the individual. and being
as unfair as we like to everyone else.
11.30 a.m.
May I illustrate what I have in mind
in this way?
Suppose that a local
authority is acquiring one area of land
which belongs to one person and another
precisely similar area of land belonging
to six people and situated somewhere
else. Are we to say that it is fair from
the point of view of the local authority
that it should pay a different price for
those two precisely similar pieces of.
land? If we are to talk about market
value-which is what we are discussing
and what the right hon. Gentleman put
at the beginning of his White Paper as
the object of this Bill-what is the market
value in such a case? Is it entirely
differen t for two pieces of property worth
exactly the same to the buyer; and if
2~
~
[
Town and Count'y
27 NOVEMBER 1958
there is any difference, must it depend
not on the character of the land. not on
its existing use value or development
value. 'but on the difference in ownership?
1 think that the Minister appreciates
this point, otherwise he would not have
said that this will make no difference at
all. Going flat in the face of the Uthwatt
Committee Repon he said that it will
,come out just 1he same anyway. provided
that we do not muddle it up in some
other way. The Minister said, therefore,
that the short answer is that it does not
make any odds; that the market value
from the point of view of everyone will
be exactly the same, whether it is the case
of one piece of land belonging to a single
owner or a piece belonging to six owners.
. The conclusion of the Uthwatt Report
is directly opposite. It is.a practical conclusion, arrived at by chartered surveyors
and not by the members of the Committee with legal experience who merely
stated the matter afterwards. The Committee concluded that it never worked
out. Someone mentioned the difference
by and large as being about a quarter in
the result. Obviously, the difference will
vary enormously according to the kind
9f multiplicity of ownership, and possibly
accordin. to the situation of th la d
d
so on. But on the broad que~tio~ t:e~e
is no doubt that a difference exists, and
1 disagree completely with the right hon.
Gentleman if he intends the opposite.
Not only do 1 disagree with him, but
everyone who has ever had to deal with,
this question of floating value has come
to exactly the same conclusion; that a
difference does exist and is a matter of
fact. When the hon. Member for North
Angus and Mearns (Sir C. ThorntonKemsley) talks about floating value having settled on all the plots, 1 feel tempted
to use some very simple words ,to describe
what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman
might consider again what floating value
really means, and I advise him to read
the Uthwatt Report which contains what
It p~obably the clearest statement on the
subject. It IS a problem whIch. eXIsts
apart from anythmg else contamed 10 that
Report, and apart from any quesuon of
planmng at all.
. The hon. Member for North Angus and
Mearns, who was followed in this respect
the .Minister. said that the practical
dIfficulties w~1l be insuperable, and that
every time It IS proposed to value a parcel
br
Planning Bill
22
ilf land. we could not value the whole of
what is described as the global area: 1
wonder whether hon. Members have
noticed where the definition of .. global.
area" comes from? It comes .from
Clause 7 of the Bdl. There It IS 10
relatIOn to development and here It IS put
in a rather different way, in relation to
valuatIOn. But fundamentally, .the questIOn .IS exactly the same. ConSIder what
1 mIght call the grossest case, the most
obvIous ~ase, that of a new town. which
appears 10 paragraph 3 10 the Table on
page 11 of the Bill. When assessing the
development value of any piece of
property 10 the town we have to remember
that we must not take into account-we
must deliberately omit-the development
of any land in that new. town; that is to
say, the part that IS deSIgnated as a new
town. It seems to me that here we are
domg the same thm,g m a dIfferent connectIOn ; we are dOlOg It the other way
round. But we are still doing what. in
Clause 7 of the Bill, we suggest should be
done in connection with the value of the
global area.
' C
SIl, Thomton-Kemsley: Surely the
hon. and learned Member recogOlses that
m paragraph 3 on page 11 of the BIll the
revaluatIOn of the whole new town area
IS not re9Ulred, whereas 10 hIS proposal
It IS requITed.
Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Gentleman
thinks about it. he will appreciate that if
we are trymg to assess the development
value of a given parcel of land in the
new town and at the same time not including the development value of any other
part of the new town, we have to put
the parcel of land in a quite artificial
position; and in order to make a difference between its possible development
value and its developmen t value on this
basis, we have to make some assumption
about the development value of the rest
of the new town.
I wish the Minister and the Committee
to consider another point before I return,
as I intend to, to the question of the
global area. We ,have to consider two
things. I repeat that the distinction is
not so sharp as all that. but they are
there. One is the existing use value and
the orher is development value. Probably, we already 'have a pretty good idea
of the existing use value of t~e new
town and so there is not much dIfficulty
23
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.]
about that. We may find that the development value of the new town as a
whole is not as large a figure as some of
~he development values in areas near to
it. It may be an exception to the Uthwatt
Committee's rule in that respect, but
whether that is so or not. we have a
pretty good idea of the existing use value.
The Minister said. " Yes. but when you
come to divide up your global value. you
must not take existing use value as the
standard because, if you do that, you are
giving an unfair preference to people who
have developed already, compared with
people who may develop in the future."
I hope that I have summarised the right
hon. Gentleman's argument rightly. In
one case the property may be valuable
and in the other it may be a comparatively valueless piece of property as it
stands, but possessing considerable potential development value.
The point is-and here I think we
come to a question of principle-that if
we are to be fair, is it fair to allow people
in a new town. as it were. to "scoop n
a development value which derives entirely from the peculiar oharacter of the
new town itself? I suppose that this is a
very peculiar form of betterment, one that
arises out of legislation, out of Government action and the rest of it. It is a
singularly direct instance of a case where
the potential value of some property derives from particular Parliamentary and
Ministerial action in the creation and
administration of a new town.
.
I gather that tbe right hon. Gentleman
has recognised this.
:why otherwise
should he have taken new towns and the
other instances and treated them especially in relation to potential value, whicb
is what is done in Clause 7? In fact, he
has recognised and admitted tlIe peculiar
character of potential value in a new
town, or in one of ~he other cases in
Clause 7 and he will find, if he examines
it, that his Clause follows exactly all the
cases, including the first one in Clause 7.
That is why we took them. If the right
ban. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the
Member for North Angus and Meams
think that a new town is too large for
this purpose-though it was not too large
for the other-we shall be interested to
hear what smaller area tlIey would propose. Because tbat is the difficulty about
new. towns. We get a potential value
which\ as Iregards indiVidual plots, or
Planning Bill
24
even a part of the new town, is wholly
artificial, unless we consider the new
town as a whole and its effect on the
potential value of otber pieces of land.
We are told that from a practical point
of view this is very difficult; that there
are not enough valuers. In some cases
we are told that there are not enough
valuers and in others tha t there are not
enough alkali inspectors. It depends
which side you are on. I say to the Committee, and particularly to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, that
we have no particular objection to valuers
doing a good job and doing it well, and
so on. But the position is not quite as
bad as might be thought. We shall not
have to ascertain the development value
of the global area of a new town, or whatever it is, afTesh every time. Adjustments
may have to be made, but when a local
authority is in process of valuing, it has
to know the cost and how things will
work out. It has to approach the question
and get advice, which is not much
different from what a valuer would have
to do in relation to the parties to a particular transaction. Although in theory
it sounds as if we are adding enormously
to the work of the valuers, in practice [
do not think it will work out in that
way. I think the valuer of the inquiring
authority would have had to ask himself
questions similar to this before he
embarked on the process at all. If it
so happens that one plot is being dealt
with at a oortain tinte, the character of
the special area, as I see it, is such that
the next tinte, probably quite soon, a
number of other areas would have to be
dealt with.
Regarding the practical difficulty and
the whole question which we are considering today, I would say that we must
try to do the right thing by the ratepayer and taxpayer just as much as by
the individual owner. We are anxious
to try to strike a fair balance between the
two. We agree that there have been
some cases of hardship but we do not
acoopt the proposition that every time the
question must be decided at the expense
of the ratepayer and taxpayer. When one
considers what is right in that light, I
think it a rather poor defence to say that
it would be more difficult to do. Any
kind of planning compensation is always
difficult.
Take this Bill, for example. Look at
the heap of assumptions which have to be
2S
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
made to arrive at a value in these cases.
It is a complicated matter. and it is
bound to be. We should not let difficul·
ties of that sort stand in the way of
coming to a right conclusion, even when
drafting such a Bill as this or consider.
ing Amendments to it. It is not a sound
defence to say that there are not enough
valuers. That is not likely to be the case.
and in practice. I do not think it is. I
am sorry to have spoken for such a long
time. but this is a very important matter.
I hope that we shall hear the views of
other hon. Members upon it.
11.45 a.m.
I wish to add one other point rcgarding
the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion
that we should 'be doing gross injustice
as between one owner and another. There
might be cases in which that would be
felt. T'hey would he exceptional cases.
but there might be cases of that sort.
But having fairly. I 'hope. admitted that.
I do not believe that they ·will be anything like the majority of cases or. indeed.
any~hing like the number of people .who
feel some resentment now at the twoprice system which the Government intro·
duced. led or driven thereto by the Prime
Minister. That is the major injustice
which we are all trying to remedy today.
I do not want to create unnecessary
minor injustices by doing it. but I recognise that there might .be that feeling in
some cases.
On the other ~hand. as my hon. and
learned Friend ~he Member for Edge Hill
said in opening, there is one major injustice which substantially remains uncorrected by the Bill. That is. the injustice
that SO many of the development values
which we are dealing .with today are
development values brought about. not
by the effort nor by the merits of the
individual directly concerned. but by the
efforts of the community. On Second
Reading. I quoted the Prime Minister's
statement in which he recognised that and
gave that as ~he reason for the two,price
system. which we are now trying to
correct.
,We are not correcting it. ,We are
correctiqg part of it only. I cannot on
this Amendment go into the fuller cor·
rections whioh I had in mind and men·
tioned on Second Reading. I can. 'how·
ever. say that while it does not really
deal with 'betterment at all-my hon. and
learned Friend ,was quite right about that
t.
Planning Bill
26
-the effect of the Amendment is to make
it a little fairer from that point of view
as between one individual and another.
If the Government are making an indi·
vidual's rights depend entirely on the
character of Ibis holding. that. too, is an
injustice.
.. The Minister made one suggestion
which ,hardly merits a long reply; indeed.
I have heen too long already. That was.
that there would be great difficulty in
applying this procedureolo various interests.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned
freehold interests. The difficulty about
the Amendment is simply the difficulty in
the Bill. T'here is no other difficulty
about it. If we go through the Bill. take'
all the .assumptions that it contains and
then apply them to a global area. they
can apply to it just as readily, so far as
I have discovered. as they can to the
relcvant value. When we come to divide
it up. it is again perfectly simple. We have
to assess the existing value any,}lOw and
we divide up in proportion to that existing value.
The Government could not do otherwise, because what we a.re considering is
the market value. composed par,Uy of
existing value and partly of development
value. We do not want one division for
one and another for another. Once we
get to the position of dividing. as. I
believe, we ought. I have no doubt that
we must follow existing use values; and
I do not believe that anything like as
substantial an injustice would be created
as the broad one which remains uncorrected by the Bill that most of these
development values are not due to the
individual at all. They are due to some
collective effort. which the Prime Minister
recognised when speaking on the 1953 or
1954 Bill.
We are throwing the Prime Minister
overboard with a nice resounding splash
and all of us on this side view that process
with some amusement. Splashes always
are rather fun. We threw him overboard
in the Rent Act. when the 1954 Act was
thrown overboard. We are throwing him
overboard today. In our excessive enthusiasm for denouncing the Prime Minister.
however-I am saying this to hon. and
right hon. Members opposite----<1o not go
too far. Do not lean too much the other
way. After all. the community as such has
some rights and if the acquiring authority
is squeezed too 'hard. it is not a legal or
27
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Town and Country
[MR. MITCHISON.]
an administrative fiction that is being
squeezed. It is a lot of one's fellow citizens
who pay the rates and who pay the taxes.
Mr. Grabam Page: I hope I am not
being unfair to the hon. and learned
Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. I. Irvine)
if I say that it would have been nice for
us on this side of the Committee had he
been able to publish a simple guide to the
two Amendments and the other consequential Amendments. 'a sort of " Valuation without tears" or Global areaS
H
without globules". We have had some
difficulty in trying to understand it.
Nevertheless, the hon. and learned Member directed our attention, quite rightly, to
the difference in the possible val uation
when areas are taken piecemeal and when
they are taken within a global area.
I was trying to discover from the hon.
and learned Member's Amendment
exactly what was meant by "global
area". My hon. Friend the Member for
North Angus and Mearns (Sir C.
Thornton-Kemsley) considered the large
globe such as a new town or some very
wide area. As I read the Amendment,
however, it could be a much smaller
area.
Subsection (3) in the second
Amendment states that "global area"
means:
.. the area of all the land authorised to be
acquired with the relevant land".
That might be something less than a comprehensive area or even something less
than the whole of a new town.
Mr. Irvine indicated assent.
Mr. Page: I am glad that the hon.
and learned Member agrees.
That leads me to the particular case
with which I should like to deal.
I
suppose it is something like heresy in
town planning circles to say that one
does not believe Uthwatt.
He may
have been right in dealing with a global
area when considering the whole of the
country. Personally, I do not think he
was right, but that is a matter of argument. He may be right when taking a
quite vast area like a new town, but I
am sure that he is not always right when
taking the smaller area-say, a slum
clearance area.
This is the particular case which I
should like my right hon. Friend the
Minister to consider.
Let us assume
Planning Bill
28
that an area which is being cleared contams very small houses and that we are
left with very small sites, each site
belonging to a different owner.
Each
site has no value whatever, or, perhaps,
a very small value. On the present basis
of the Bill, the acquiring authority may
be in a position to acquire each of those
smalI sites at a very small sum. Having
acquired them all, however, it has an
area of land of considerable value. That
is where I disagree with Uthwatt that
the piecemeal value as a total will always
exceed the global value. In that case,
surely, the 'global value would exceed the
total of the piecemeal values.
Mr. Julius Silverman : I believe mhail the
principle set out by Uthwa~t is imJtended
to apply mainly to undeveloped Jandfor example, land on the periphery of
large cit.ies w.hich has not been developed.
It was not intended to 'apply to already
developed areas.
Mr. Page: I 'am obliged ,to .he hon.
Member. The ,hon. and learned Member
for Ke~tering (Mr. Miltchison) gave an apt
example when discussing t·he acquisition
of an area of ,land belonging to one person and an area of 'land belonging to half
a dozen people. .Jf the land belongs to
one person, I presume r1Jhail its value as a
whole is greater ·than that of each slingle
site belonging to each one of the ,half
dozen people. U one regards mhe globe
in Ithat .rather smaller sphere and considers
,the example which I have given of a slum
clearance area consistmg of very small
sites, something should be done about it
on ,the lines of the Amendmel1lt.
T'he Amendment as a whole goes much
too ,far. 'I ask my r·ight ,hon. Foriemd.
'however, to consider ~hese particular
cases. Where small sites are on their own
~hey may be valueless or of very small
value. but when Ithey are acquired logether by an acquiring au~hOofity, 1hat
authority has ,land of substantial value
'and, .therefore, each separate owner
should share in ,~haJt total value.
Mr. E, G, Willis: -I was interellled in
<the speech of Ithe hon. Member fOof Crosby
~Mr. Page). He was reversing the porocess
suggested by my hon. 'and leamed Friend
the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. I.
Irv,iQe). .If Ithe Ihon. Member thinks ,t
right lto do ,that, ,he should be prepared to
acre!'t th",t the opposite is right, too, and
tbaJt ,thepo's,tion put by my hon. and
Planning BUl
30
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
29
[earned Friend ·is also right. T,hat should hon. and learned Friend is a fair one for
follow from what the ·hon. Member said. ,the local authorities and, I should have
My purpose is to raise a question con- thought, for the owners of land in the
cerning Scotland, so mat we might ,hear burghs too.
the Joint Under-5ecretary ·of StaJte about
We should hear something from the
~his matter. At present, his Dep3J1tment
Joint Under-Secretary about the attitude
is engaged in a vigorous campaign of of the Scottish Office 'towards this problry.ing to peI'SUade loca,1 author,'nies in lem. The local authorities would like
Scotland ·to accept overspill population to know whether they are expected to
from Glasgow. There ,has been discus- pay the highest value on all the various
sion concerning this and myhon. Frien<i pieces of land that they take Over or
the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. whether they are to treat an area as a
Melnnes) will, ,no doubt, want to say global area and divide the value between
something about it.
Localauthorities the various owners of the property. I
suoh as Haddinllton, Dunbar. Wick and, think the local authorities in Scotland
I understand, Fraserburgh are thinking would be anxious to know that.
'about.it. All over Scotland, 't,he proposition to accept overspiH populaMon from [2 noon.
Mr. James Mclnnes: My hon. Friend
Glasgow is being considered.
This series of Amendments is very has indicated that the Amendment would
relevant to what those local authorities have a strong impact upon the problem
might be expected to pay. We are deal- that exists in Scotland, such as that of
ing with local authorities which, in order Glasgow having to overspill 300.000
·to accept the overspill population, un- people into the areas of seventy or eighty
'doubtedly will have to acquire fairly large local authorities. I think this Amendsites, in some cases very large sites, on ment would be rather appropriate to that
,the periphery of the city or, in most cases, problem, and therefore I should like to
of the small burgh. These are the cases know whether the Secretary of IState for
to which my hon. and learned Friend re- Scotland is just going to follow his usual
ferred specifically and to which the procedure of slavishly following whatever the right hon. Gentleman the MinisUthwatt Committee referred specifically.
ter of Housing and Local Government
Those are the cases in which the whole says on this matter. [am sure that the
question of the floating value of an area Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotapplies. On which site does it settle? land must recognise the violent difference
On whose property does it settle? On in Scotland. so far as the law of land
what basis is the local authority to be tenure is concerned. and must appreciate
.expected to pay compensation to the the fact that we have no problem in Scotowners of the land which it acquires? We land with regard to compulsory acquisi.
have heard nothing about this. In the tion Or as to the terms or the ex.tent of
interests of fairness to the ratepayers- compensation payable. That is abunwho, after all, are entitled ,to be con- dantly clear to all of us in Scotland.
sidered, as well as the owners of the
Incidentally. I must confess that J do
property-the proposition enunciated by
my hon. and learned Friend should apply not accept in any way the analogy which
in these cases. J should have thought that the hon. Member for North Angus
by and large, the local authorities and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)
gave in reply to my hon. Friend the
throughout Scotland would favour that.
Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr.
As 1 pointed out when discussing the A. J. Irvine). I thought that he was
Money Resolution, it is easy for the stretching a point when he dealt almost
Government to be generous at the expense exclusively with the position that arises
of local authorities. That is what they in new towns. I should like to know
are doing under the Bill. They are shout· what is the extent of the Secretary of
ing a great deal about giving compensa· State's opposition to dividing global
tion and about their desire to see fairness, value and existing use value in this
but they are doing it at the expense of Amendment.
local authorities and they are not doing
much to help local authorities to meet it.
Mr. F. V. Cortield: Perhaps I may
It is easy to be fair at somebody else's bring the debate back to England for a
expense. The proposition put by my moment. [want 10 recall the opening
27101
B
31
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. CORFIELD.]
remarks of the hon. and learned Member
for Liverpool. Edge Hill (Mr. A. J.
Irvine).
He took as an example
the case of a piece of undeveloped
land contiguous to a piece of
fully developed land. and I think these
extreme examples are often the best way
.to illustrate a point of this sort. It seems
to me. although I do not for a moment
profess to be a valuer. that in a case of
this sort the market value of fullydeveloped land is not going to differ very
much. if at all. from the existing use
value of fully developed land. because
the very adjective" fully developed" indicates that there is no further potential
development value.
Therefore. it seems to me that in that
case. which admittedly the hon. and
learned Gentleman probably chose to
illustrate another point. whatever proportion the existing use value of the relevant
land bears to the existing use value of
the global area. the result is going to be
almost the same as the existing use value
of the relevant land. So we get back
to a state which is not only as Iowa figure
as we have at the present. which I think
we are all agreed produces injustice. but
an even lower figure. I should have
thought that that sort of illustration shows
how in many cases the suggestion made
by the hon. and learned Member oppo·
site will produce a result which I do not
think hon. Members opposite intend
should be prod uced.
The hon. and learned Member went on
to quote from Uthwatt. I have not a
copy of that Report. but T think I am
right in saying that he said the estimate
of the Uthwatt Committee was that the
piecemeal mcthod of valuation might well
nroduce a result two or three times as
large as this global method. I shall be
corrected if I am wrong about that. The
hon. and learned Member further went
on to remind the Committee that it was
on . this proposition that the idea of a
global sum of £300 million was based.
As events turned out. if my memory
serves me right. the difference between
the global figure of £300 million and the
sum of the piecemeal valuation was some~
thing a shade under 20 per cent. I admit
that there is a difference. and that the
difference is in favour of the .global sum.
But there is. after all. a substantial
difference between 20 per cent. and an
Planning
Bm
32
estimated difference of 200 to 300 per
cent.
I think that illustrates the danger we
may be in if after fifteen years we go
on regarding Uthwatt as a sort of
Biblical authority on all matters 'connected with town and country planning.
notwithstanding the great developments
and differences that have arisen in the last
fifteen years. As my hon. Friend for
Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out. if this
method were adopted it would make a
considerable difference to the compensation payable in matters of slum clearance.
A large part of compulsory
acquisition arises from slum clearance
today and this. I suggest. would greatly
counteract the 20 per cent. advantage
which events have shown the global
figure gives. from the public point of
view. Over the sum of the piecemeal
valuation method. I submit that the
suggestion put forward by hon. Members
opposite will not produce quite the results
which they anticipate.
Mr. William Rnss : I am surprised that
we are having to wait so long before we
get even an indication from the Scottish
representative from the Front Bench
opposite. but I gather from various movements that he does intend to make some
reference to the Amendment.
We are discussing with the first
Amendment on the paper the second
one. in page 2. line 8. which contains two new subsections. (3) and
(4); and paragraph (c) of subsection (4)
is entirely relevant to Scotland. We
have not had a single word from
anyone so far as to why this Amendment should be rejected in relation to
Scotland. Yet the Minister would happily
have us go ahead and discard this
Amendment without discussion. and then
find the unamended provision applied to
all Scotland as well. That is a shocking
way of legislating. I think it is a rather
dreadful attitude for a patriotic Scottish
Under-Secretary to adopt. to sit there in
silence and make no effort to defend his
case in respect of this Amendment.
Subsection (4) says that the global area
will apply to
.. (cl an area to whiC'h a town development
scheme under Part II of the Housing and Town
Development (Scotland) Act, 1957 relates,
being a scheme which is in operation on the
date of service of the notice to treat:'
33
Town Dlld Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
I do not know whether mher hon. Members realise it, but 1 think the position
has been made clear by my hon. Friend
the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr.
Melnnes) that Glasgow is in the shocking
position of not being able to house its
people within its own area and is seeking
throughout ·the length and breadth of
Scotland local authorities willing to rehouse 300,000 of Glasgow's present
population. So we get Part II of the
Town Development (Scmland) Act. But
one of the most important parts of that
Act is that not only are houses to go
up but industries are to be transferred;
and, in fact, most local authorities who
are interested are insisting: "We take no
overspill population unless we get
industry". The Joint Under-Secretary,
whose main concern is with educationand 1 suppose that fits in with the job
that he has been given here today-will
know that local authorities have been
given powers to put up the factories; in
fact, it is expected that local authorities,
big and small, will take upon themselves
the powers of buying land, building
factories and persuading people to come
in.
So here we have local authorities all
over Scotland, including the place where
we had the by-election the other day. East
Aberdeen-and incidentaJly 1 was wondering whether the new Member was in
the Scottish Grand Committee this morning. If so, 1 was going to congratulate
him on having already equalled the
record of his predecessor in his attendance
over the past two years. These local
authorities, from the most northern part
of East Aberdeen right down to the south
of Scotland-Mr. Willis: From Wick.
Mr. Ross : From Wick and right down,
including a great part of Ayrshire will
. take these powers, for things are so bad
that people are desperate to get into
industry. 1 wonder whether the Scottish
Office have been telling the people what
prices they have got to pay. The Joint
Under-Secretary knows that. when a local
authority signs an overspill agreementand some have already done so-there
is no way out for them; and if they do
not comply with the conditions, he can
either take it to the Court of Session
and force them to do it, or he can take
over the business of the local authority
Planning Bill
34
and do it himself. And here he is in this
Bill changing the rules, because he is
making it a much more expensive matter
for a local authority to get the ground
for houses and factories.
The fact is that, in order to provide
houses for overspill, and factories, local
authorities will require land. and in many
cases they may have to get it through this
Bill. These are not small tracts of land
that we are talking about. To take a
town like a small burgh near Kilmarnock
- I say this, although in Kilmarnock there
is probably no difliculty, because the
whole of Kilmarnock is owned by one
man-Mr. McInnes : Johnny Walker.
Mr. Ro•• :
No. The Joint UnderSecretary knows who the man is, because
he is in charge of education, and in order
to get a technical school that was
mooted in the House of Commons three
years ago we had compulsorily to acquire
the land; and he knows who the people
were who resisted.
Mr. Willi.: We do not.
Mr. Ros.: It was Lord Howard de
Walden. Of course, we have now got
that land. 1 am wondering whether as
a result of this Bill the purchasers of that
land will have to pay more. The point
is that in the case of the smaJI burghs,
they have probably got to deal with a
multiplication of owners, and it means.
from my reading of the Amendmentwhich 1 think is quite simple. and 1 wonder at the floundering of the Minister;
it has been made clear by one of his back
benchers-that the sum of the pieces of
land valued separately in areas such as
these on the outskirts of deveJoped land
is going to be much greater than if it were
valued, according to our suggested
iAmendment, on a global basis. That
will mean that smaJl burghs in Scotland
are going to pay at least 20 per cent.
more if this kmendment is resisted.
1 think that th,e Joint Under-Secretary
should tell the Scottish looal authorities
that, having signed overspill agreements,
they are now going >10 increase their
liabilities in .respect of ~he compulsory
purchase of land by 20 per cent. 1 do
not think that will help to solve the overspill problem of Glasgow. There may be
difficulties there in getting over existing
agreements, but this one will be too much
35
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. Rass.]
for local authorities to accept. This may
well be the barrier between the acceptance
of overspill and the rejection of it. I
cannot but comment on the hon. Member
opposite who was prepared to resist the
Amendment when it was favourable to
local authorities but, with a full share of
Tory cheek, to ask the Minister to make
some alteration to the Amendment where
it was favourable to the owners of land.
12.15 p:m.
So far as Scottish local authorities are
concerned, I know how they would feel
in ·relation to this Amendment. Dumfries,
for example, would prefer to have any
compulsory purchases of land on the basis
of the global value rather than have to
troot with individual "aluations which
would cost so much more to them in their
development plans.
I have only mentioned so far town
development in Scotland because it is
immediately the more important; but
probably now we shall hear the Joint
Under-Secretary of Slate answering these
points. Briefly, Scottish local authorities
are asked to undertake developments
which will mean them purchasing landmainly ·undeveloped land for the purposes
of housing and industrial development at
the behest of the Government. If this
Amendment Were accepted, the land
would cost them considerably less than if
we 'anc>wed this Bin to go unamended.
Furthermore, it would be much more fair.
It has the Report of a distinguished Committee behind i.t in respect of the
principles, and the administration would
not be so very difficult. Every Scottish
property is being revalued at Ihe
moment.
Planning Bill
36
Mr. Ross: No, we want an answer. We
want someone other than the Secretary
of State.
Mr. Willis: Owing to the manner in
which Scotland is dragged into this Bill,
we cannot get a responsible Scottish
Minister Ito answer.
Mr. Ro<s : I think the man responsible
is sitting opposite. I refer to the English
Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not think that any responsible
Scottish Minister would accept responsibility for ,this. I think that that is all
I have to say.
The Chainnan : I was just going to say
that ,the hon. Member must not get too
far from the Amendment.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland (Mr. Niall Macphersoa): We
have had three speeches from Scottish
hon. -Members opposite and one from this
side. What we are discussing on trus
Amendment is whether global value or
the sum of individual values should be
,the val ue for a particu Jar area.
It seems
to me that there is a no clear indication
as to how global value is to be ascertained, and it must follow that to say
the global value would be less is a mere
guess, There is no reason for saying
that will be so in all cases.
I have boen asked what is the basis
under tbe present Bill. The basis whicb
we propose is bhe fair market value of
the individual plots. Tbere is here one
definite advantage-an advantage whicb
I think would be entirely lost by the
Amendment, altbc>ugh I do not know
what is in the mind of the Opposition as
the hon. and learned Member for Kettering ~Mr. Mitchison) said he had not put
down all the Amendments-I think he
mentioned 30 or 4o-which would be
involved, and because of his failure we
do not know what is in the mind of the
Opposition.
We in Scotland are in the throes of
something which caused a certain amount
of upheaval in the streets of England not
so long ago and also caused hurried
legislMion to be brought jn. That is being
done in Scotland. Are we to be told that
it win be more difficult administratively
when it takes the town of Kilmarnock
three ye.,-s to buy one single plot of land
from a lordly land superior? Is this the
great administrative difficulty? I hope
that the Under-Secretary will trot out
something much better than that.
Mr. -Mitchison: :rhat really is a bit
thin. One would have to go through the
Bill substituting" global area" for" re·
levant interest" and so on. That is an
there is to it. I am sure that tbe UnderSecretary is capable of tbat intellectual
performance, and even capable of it in
relation to this side of the Committee.
Mr. Mclnnes: Trot out the Secretary
of St..te.
Mr. Macpherson: I thought that the
hon. and learned Gentleman said his
37
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
Amendment would be more than purely
consequential. But if he accepts that the
global value shall be assessed in accordance with the Bill as it stands. I should
not ,have thought ~hat ·there would be
much difference in the entirely changed
circumstances created by the Town and
Country Planning Act; but it would have
this decided disadvantage-it would be
very difficult, if not impossible, for the
holUer of an individual plot to appeal.
That would be much more difficult if there
were only a global value for development.
How cO';lld these provlSlons for appeal
operate ?if the ,global value alone were
assessed.
Mr. Mitcbison: I will tell the UnderSecretary. The person would be an
aggrieved person and on that basis could
appeal.
Mr. Macpherson: On wlhat basis? If
the Ibasis of assessment is rto be the assessment of the individual plot on the fair
market value, then we shall know on what
basis the holder of the plot can appeal
against a use of the land which he thinks
is unfairly determined.
Mr. Mitchison: Quite obviously he
could appeal against the valuMion of the
global area or its division on the ground
that its existing -use value was not fairly
assessed.
Mr. Macpherson: That is not clear
from the way in which the Amendment
has been drafted. I think it would be
on the basis of a mathem8'lical calculation and nothing else.
Mr. Mitchison : No, it would not.
Mr. Macpherson: I have been asked
about Scotland and I am obliged to the
hon. Member for Kilmarnock ~Mr. Ross)
for what he has said. I thank him quite
sincerely for informing the Committee
of the problem which we have in relation
to ,town development in Scotland because
that will arise again in the course of this
Bill. The basis for assessment is the fair
market value subject to vhe limitations in
Clause 7 which relate specifically to town
development in Scotland. .J should have
thought that ,that was perfectly clear. It
is an assertion entirely on the part of
the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to say
that thevalueswouldbevery muoh greater
if they were made on the basis of individual plots rather rt;han on the basis of
the global area.
Planning Bill
38
Hon. Members may recall that the
Secretary of State for Scotland said on
the Second Reading of the Bill that there
is no reason to think that the new basis
would impede overspill ,town development and that there would be, in any
case, a continuation of the grant of 75
per cent. for that purpose. So I am
certain that the Committee will at least
agree with me ~hat any difference would
be entirely marginal.
Mr. Melnnes : The Under-Secretary has
said there would be compensation to
the e"tent of 75 per cent. ; but that is 75
per cent. of a notional value. Is not that
what would be fixed by thM means?
Mr. Macpherson: Yes, a notional
figure, but it would be wrong for me to
go into an Act which is already on the
Statute Book. It is related only proportionately to the Amendment. The main
point is that we have no evidence to show
that the assessment under the Amendment
before us would, in fact, cost less than
the sum of the assessments for market
value. The whole principle of the Bill
is the assessment of fair market value for
the individual plots, and to accept the
Amendment would be to depart from the
whole basis of the Bill-a basis which was
accepted during the Second Reading of
the Bill-and it would not be right to
go back on the basic point of the fair
market value for the individual plot.
Therefore, so far as the Scottish hon.
Members are concerned, I hope they will
recognise that whatever method is applied
the same principle should be applied
throughout the United Kingdom as it
always has been applied.
Mr. Ross: That is just not true.
Mr. Macpherson : As it has always been
applied in the matter of the acquisition
of land for a century or so.
Mr. Melnnes: Not at all.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not think that
I would have dared to have butted in on
what has developed into an argument
between experts on the valuation of land
and the fixing of a global sum and so
on, if it had not been for one comment
by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Ministry of Housing and Local Government when introducing the Bill. He then
described it as generally comprehensible.
He must, I think, by now want to withdraw that statement. I think We shall be
39
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. GIBSON.]
a long way from generally comprehending
the Bill as we go through it. The trouble
in this country is that anybody who
attempts to deal with the land problem
gets stuck in a legal bog that the landowners, over the centuries, have created.
These difficulties are historical, and their
solution lies neither in this Bill nor in any
of the previous town planning Acts.
12.30 p.m.
. The hon. Member for North Angus and
Mearns (Sir C. Thomton-Kemsley) suggested, as I thought, that this Amendment
could not be worked; that it was not
possible to arrive at a global value, and
share it out amongst the owners of individual plots. On the other hand, the
professionals in the industry think it can
be done, and assume that it will be done,
because only this morning I have had a
document from the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors which raises a point
with which the Minister should deal.
In relation to the first part of the Bill.
the document says:
,. It is widely believed-and there is a
'<langer that the legislation might be so con·strued-that the land will be valued for the
specified uses, and for those uses only . . .
But the market would not necessarily limit its
price to the value of the land for such specific
uses; the market would have regard to all the
p<Jtentialities and disabilities of the land, but
with the kn<Jwledge that certain developments
would definitely be pennitted,"
In other ,words, !hey would work out
the price. as, indeed all valuers do, for
all the land, however big the global piece
was. It makes me a little cynical to hear
valuers say that one cannot value the land
of England. They are doing it every day
of the week. They do it every time a
pi",e of land changes hands-Sir C. Thomton.Kemsley : I did not say
it could not be done. I said that it
would be an immense task of valuationand so it would be.
~ha t
Mr. Gibson: It is an immense task
!'hat is bemg done every day, all over the
country, as land changes ownership; and
it is done in thousands of cases when
local authorities 'buy land. From the
in10rmation I have, my estimate is that,
in 'London, if the Bill goes through as it
is. we may find that the cost of land for
our houses, sdhools and other soclUlly
nectssary institutions will increase by
abDut 25 per cent. Of course, !hat is
Planning Bill
40
really .what the Minister wants. He wants
to give the landlords more money-Mr. McInnes: He said so.
Mr. Gibson: If this Bill goes through.
it will undoubtedly do that. My pomt,
however, is othat it cannDt lbe said that this
Amendment cannot be .worked because,
in 1act, valuations are being made every
day all over the country-including Scotland. I hope that !he Committee. will
consider the matter muoh more carelfully
and sympathetically than the Minister has
so far done. Like him, I do not in any
way profess to be an expert on land
values, but I have very strong opinions
about them, and I know that in other
parts of the world, including the Commonwealth, this problem has been solved.
though that is not a matter that is 'before
us today.
Whether or not we are experts on the
subject does not matter, if we-and particularly those of us who have been for
many years members of local authorities
-know from our experience that land
valuations are taking place every day;
that the valuers, in valuing the land, take
into account all its potentialities and all
its disabilities. For myself, I think that
this Amendment is rather fairer to the
owners of land than is morally justified,
but it would share out among individual
plot owners the global value of the land.
That seems to me to be quite reasonable. As has already been said, an
attempt is made in Clause 7 to adopt the
same principle in order to protect the
interests of new towns and the like. I
therefore hope that we shall hear, either
from the Minister, the Parliamentary
Secretary or the Joint Under-Secretary of
State for Scotland, some reasons for the
Government's opposition to the Amendment more convincing than those that
have so far been put forward. The public
are entitled to know the justification for
the Clause, and for the rejection of an
Amendment put forward in the interests
of the public generally, and I hope that
we shall hear something more about it
before we have a Division.
Mr. MacCoII: I want to touch on only
three points. I want, first, to deal with
the pinpricks aimed at the drafting of the
Schedule, and at this Amendment. When
dealing with a Bill as complicated as this,
in which the situation is created by the
41
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
Gqvernment and not by us,· and when we
have to operate within the narrow confines of the Measure, it is obviously
foolish to imagine that in any Amendment, however masterly its drafting may
be-and I think that this one bears
evidence of being drafted by a masterwe can hope to deal with the whole complex question of valuation. One can only
put up the broad principle and direct the
Committee's attention to it. That has
been done. It is a very important principle, and it is one to which no clear
answer has been given.
.
The hon. Member for North Angus
and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)
said that this would be an immense
valuation, and that it could not be done,
but that illustrates our point. It is not
we who departed from the once-far-all
principle. If the principle of the 1947
Act had been maintained, there would
not now be the need to go through the
whole thing again. It is the Government
who have thrown out that once-far-all
:principle, and so have got themselves
involved and bogged down again in the
complications of Uthwatt. Therefore, it
is up to them to find a workable way of
getting out of it.
They have not done that. They have
not faced the problem. My hon. Friend
the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson)
quoted from this new memorandum from
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and I should like to quote from
the first paragraph on the second page.
It deals with another point, but it is
very germane to this one. It deals with
whether, as has been suggested, the new
development plans have destroyed the
caSe for Uthwatt. It says:
.. As a general principle, it is reasonable to
assume that permission would be granted for
development within the 'primary use' shown
on the development plan. On the other hand,
the market would not necessarily restrict its
view to such development in all cases. For
e'tampte, where the plan indicates a large area
as primarily for residential use. it will be wellknown that certain other. possibly more valuable, uses not incompatible with a residential
area would be permitted in the area e.g.
shops."
That is my 'hon. Friend's point. In a
properly planned neighbourhood unit in
a new town. everyone knows there will
have to be a shopping centre somewhere,
and that ·that property will have value.
When t·he acquisition is taking place, how
are we to decide on which particular
Planning Bill
42
ploughed field the shopping centre will
be built? How, therefore, are we to decide where the development value settles?
That is the Uthwatt problem-and it
remains.
The Chanered Surveyors themselves
draw attention to that in this memorandum. I therefore suggest that something
of this kind of global valuation is necessary, unless the situation is to be that
the public authority that is undenaking
development is to be at risk of paying to
every individual owner who is applying
for it, compensation based on the maximum valuation of what could be the permission for the land; because anyone
of these landowners could say, "But it is
quite possible that, if this had been developed, the development of the shopping
centre would have settled in my field, so
I should be paid on that basis " - Sir C. Thomton-Kemsley : I think that
the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the
Section 4 certificate procedure. which
deals with those cases.
Mr. MacColl: I do not think that it
deals with them at all. It deals with
development that is not within the plan,
but I am talking of development that is
within a general development plan. and
where there is residential use. As I see
it, it does not really matter what the intention of the authority is. The important question is: can the individual
owner whose plot is being acquired establish a convincing case that that plot
might. in some circumstances. be used
for a shopping centre, or for other commercial purposes? If so, his compensation goes up. If I am wrong there, I
will no doubt be told by hon. Members
opposite as we continue on our fairly
deliberate way through this Bill, and I
hope ·that by the end, my contributions
will be more helpful than, perhaps, they
are now.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr.
Page) says ,that the Amendment might, in
certain circumstances. lead to certain
people getting more. Well, we are broadminded, tolerant people. Wc are nol
passionately for one side or ,the other. We
are not against ,the person who is to get
more, but we want a fair and balanced
system. If someone is ·tobe lucky, so
much the better. So what is the hon.
Gentleman quarrelling about? He should
support ·the Amendment.
43
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Brooke: We have discussed this
important matter-and I agree that it
is an important matter-for ~wo and a
half hours, and 'we have had contributions from Scotland as well as from
England. I hope that the hon. Member
for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will forgive
me if, on this Amendment, I do not reply
to 'Points raised on Clause 7 and later
Clauses. The question we now have
before us is not <whether Clauses 3, 4
or 7 are dra£ted correctly but whether
or not ,this Amendment, moved at
10.30 a.m. by ·the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) is
a good one to write into the Bill.
l'he case for the Amendment was
based on what ~he UthwaH Committee
said about floating value. I would have
thought .that hon. Members opposite
would have accepted that, since the
Uthwa lit Comm,ttee reported, ~hat there
had been a great change and diminution
of the problem of floating value, thanks
to the fact ,that we now have a comprehensive system of planning control. I
would also remind the hon. Member for
Widnes, and others, ,that it is no part of
the Government's case that the valuation
under their scheme could not be carried
out.
One would centainly have to make
some assumptions before one could arrive
at the global market value, but the great
difficu Hy, and the great delaying process
that ·is entailed in their scheme is that,
having made the valuation, there would
be interminable argument with each and
every individual owner. The owner must
be entitled to make represent&ions, not
only about the eJ<isting value of his own
land but about the existing value of every
other piece of land in the global areasince that would affeot ,the compensation
he got. And even a£ter ,that, he must be
entitled to make representations about
the total global value as well. It is not
a problem of valu&ion, but a problem of
ever getting ·these questions settled at
all-Mr. Gibson: There could be interminable argument, perhaps, but does not the
right hon. Gentleman know that in
Copenhagen, the authority revalues all
the land in the city every five years, and
does 't 'Successfully? If Copenhagen can
do it, why cannot we?
Planning Bill
44
12.45 p.m.
Mr. Brooke: I hope the Committee
will forgive me if I do not pursue what
happens in the City of Copenhagen. I
have difficulty in understanding English
law on this subject. I do my best with
Scottish law, but Danish law is entirely
beyond me, and I suspect that it is under
Danish law that values in Copenhagen
are arrived at.
The case adduced for this Amendment
is based on the argument that the sum
of all the different values of all the
different plots of land in the global area
as arrived at under this Bill will be substantially greater 'than the gloal market
value envisaged by these Amendments.
Whatever may have been the case in the
1940s, I submit that is not now normally
true. I am not saying that it is always
exactly the same. In some cases it may
be more and in others it may be less. My
hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr.
Page) raised that point. But normally it
is just not true that nowadays there is
this wide difference at the outset of a
scheme. What happens afterwards we
will examine when we discuss the relevant
Clauses.
As I said originally, in Cla use 7 we
have made certain provisions relating to
what remains of floating value, and certainly we must debate that when we come
to it. Though there may be further
opportunities for discussing the matter,
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that he will have to bear
in mind, in connection with his argument,
that the individual owner of a small site
on which there was an unfit house which
had been demolished, would not be able
to realise the cleared value of that site,
either as it stands or as a proportionate
part of a much larger cleared site, without incurring the cost of rehousing all
the controlled tenants on his sile. We
must not leave that out of consideration.
Mr. MitchisoD: May I confirm my
understanding of what seems to me a
most important statement which the
Minister has just made? If I understand
the right hon. Gentleman aright, he says
that whatever the Uthwatt Committee
may ,have said in 1942, the present position is that the value of a number of
parcels of land, say, on the fringe of a
town-which was the instance given by
the Committee-is broadly just the same,
45
Town and Country
27 NOVEMBER 1958
whether we take it as a particular parcel
or as a more comprehensive area.
Mr. Brooke: I did not say that there
was never any difference. ·1 said that
when a local aut,hority is starting on a
substantial scheme, and before the scheme
has begun to be developed, there is not
normally any substantial difference. In
Clause 7 we provide against the risk that
a local authority may find the price rising
against itself for further parts of ~he area
-we will call it the global area in the
context of this Amendment-w,hich the
authority is seeking to acquire.
Mr. MitchisOD : I am sorry to interrupt
the Minister again, but I am sure that
he appreciates the importance of this
matter. Surely the relevant time here is
the time of the notice to treat. Is the
right hon. Gentleman saying that at the
time when notices to treat are issued. the
price to a local authority of a number of
pieces of land which it seeks to acquire in
a larger area is the same as the price of
the total area?
Mr. Brooke: I am not saying that it
is always precisely the same. I am saying
that this issue must be debated in con·
nection with Clause 7 w.hen we come to
it, and we cannot anticipate the whole
of Clause 7 now.
If the argument of the hon. and learned
Gentleman is that the sum of the market
value of all the different properties is
likely to be a great deal larger than the
market value of the global area, I am
prompted to ask why speculators so fre·
quently buy up individual plots of land
with the idea that if they can buy them
all and acquire a larger global area, they
will make a profit out of the transaction.
Were the arguments of hon. Members
opposite correct, those people would be
pursuing a mad policy, because they
would lose money rather than make it.
Hon. Members opposite cannot escape
from what I said about the unfairness
of the operation of this as between individual owners. In my earlier speech
I pointed out the effect of it as between
one owner and another in the global
area, according to whether a piece of land
is developed or undeveloped. To me it
is, frankly, a case of:
.. For he that hath. to him shall be given:
and he that hath not. from him shall be taken
even that which he hath."
Planning Bill
46
I agree that the second part of that
quotation may be in accordance with the
political philosophy of the hOD. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) but I
doubt whether he and his hOD. Friends
would support the former part so
strongly.
There is no case whatever for paying
to the owner of a fully-developed sitea site developed with a valuable industrial building-some considerable amount
above the market value of his property,
simply because this Amendment would
attach to that building a quite undue
share of the development value of the
whole global site.
We have had a most interesting debate
and I hope that now we may be able to
reach a decision, because there are other
important Amendments before us.
I
trust that hon. Members on both sides
of the Committee will accept from me
that I have endeavoured to address myself to this Amendment and to explain
why I do not believe it is needed for the
purpose for which the Opposition put it
down; and why I do believe that .it
would cause gross injustices as between
one owner and another, which I am sure
that hon. Members opposite would not
wish to defend.
Mr. MitchisoD: May I ask the right
hon. Gentleman again to elucidate something which I do not find clear? Do I,
or do I not, understand him to say that
at the material time when notices to treat
are issued. as a gel1eral rule the price to
be paid by a local authority will be the
same; whether it is the price for an area,
or for each of these parcels of land individually? That is the real point in the
Uthwatt Committee's Report.
Mr, Brooke: I said that in the normal
case I do not think there will be the
substantial difference now which may
have existed at the time when the
Uthwatt Committee reported.
Mr, Silverman : What authority has the
Minister for making that statement? Has
he the authority of any body of professional experts, or can be quote from any
Report which would support that assertion?
Mr. Brooke: It is not possible for me
to obtain professional advice on which to
resist each one of the Amendments proposed by hon. Members opposite. I
47
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BROOKE.]
have to judge by my own experience, and
that of my Department and of my hon.
Friends. But if it is the wish of hon.
Members opposite. I will apply to the
professional organisations for additional
arguments to use against any Amendments which they place on the Notice
Paper.
Mr. Ross : In doing that the right hon.
Gentleman would be following a precedent set by the Secretary of State for
Scotland. But when he gets statistics
from the Property Owners' Association
will he please check them before using
them. because they are usually wrong?
Mr. Brooke : If I am following a precedent 'set by my right hon. Friend the
Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall be
following a good precedent.
I say. sincerely, that this is my view of
what will happen if this Bill is enacted.
There is so much relating to this subject
.that we shall have to discuss when we
come to consider Clauses 3 to 7. But I
believe that in those Clauses Mle Government have laid out a practical plan to
deal with the kind of point raised by the
hon. Member for Widnes and all these
other difficulties which have been
ventilated. I suggest that we should now
dispose of this Amendment and clear the
way for consideration of the next
important Amendmerut.
Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to have to
ask the right hon. Gentleman one more
question, but we shall wish to came back
to this very impartant ma tter at a later
stage in aur discussion an the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that
he has the experience of his Department
to support him. I should like to knownot necessarily now. but at some timewhat is that experience. and what bearing
it has on this question. So far there can
be no inslances of direct comparison.
although the right hon. Gentleman may
be able to find some cases where the kinds
of properties considered were close enoullh
to throw some light on the matter. We
should like to know what is the departmental experience which ,has prompted
the right 'hon. Gentleman to state that
there has been a complete ohange in the
situation since the Uthwatt Committee
came to the conclusion that the difference
between the two methods of valuation
amounted to two or three times the
smaller figure.
Mr. Brooke: I will take note of what
the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
Mr. Willis: While the Minister is
collecting information regarding England
and Wales, will he also ask his right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland
to obtain some information relating to
Scotland. in order that hon. Members
representing Scottish constituencies may
be able to discuss this matter intelligently?
Mr. Brooke: I appreciate that this
matter is of interest to Scotland as well
as to England and Wales.
Question put, That those words be there
inserted : -
The Commillee divided:
Noes 23.
Ayes 15,
AYES
Division No. 1.]
Blenklruop, A.
Butler, Mn. ",0'08 (Wood ern")
48
Planning Bill
Aon, Wllllam
811nnn8n, JulluI (Alton)
Ikeftlngton, A. M.
MacColI, J. E.
Molnnea, ...
Mllohlaoft, C. R.
Fltoh, A. E. (Wllan)
Clbson, C. W.
Irwlne, A. J. (Edge Hili)
Morrl., PIlTCly (8wan.....
Probert. A. A.
Balnlll, Lord
Bevlm, I. R. (Tolteth)
,Blgg..Dnl.on, •. A.
BroOM, Rt. Hon. HemJ
COIII, Norman
Cort'itld, Capt. F. V.
du Cllln, E. D. L.
Elllon,R,W .,N,'ce.ne upon TJn',N.)
Errlngton, Ilr Erlo
Curdtn, Harold
Harrbon, Col. J. H. (EJe)
Hili, Mrt. E. (WJthench:l..e)
HoU, A. F.
JoMson, Dr. Donald (Carll.le)
John.on, ErlCl '(Bladt1eJ)
MacphllflOfl, Nlan (Dum'rie.)
w.)
Wilkl"" W. A.
Wllli., EllI1aoe (EdlnbUf'lh, E.)
NOFS
M.ltlaRd, Hon. Patrtck (Lanartl.)
NlcollOn, N. (B'n'm'th, E. a: Chr'Ch)
Nugen_, C. A. H.
Pa.e, A. C.
PoweU, ". Enoch
Temple, "OM M.
ThQmlon·KemslllJ, Ilr CoIIn
Funher consideration adjaurned.-[Mr. Brooke.]
Committee adjourned till Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958, at half-past Ten o'clock.
,;
49
Town and Counlry
27 NOVEMBER 1958
Pltmning Bill
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED TIlE COMMITTEE:
Grimston, Sir R. (Chairman)
Balniel, Lord
Bevins, Mr.
Biggs-Davison, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.
Brooke, Mr.
Butler, Mrs.
Col~, Mr.
Corfield, Mr.
du Cann, Mr.
EHiotl, Mr.
Errington, Sir E.
Filch, Mr.
Gibson, Mr.
Grifliths, Mr. D.
Gurden, Mr.
Harrison, Colonel
Hill, Mrs.
Holt, Mr.
lrvine, Mr. A. J.
Johnson, Dr.
Johnson, Mr. E.
MacCoH, Mr.
Mclnnes, Mr.
Macpherson, Mr. N.
Maitland, Mr.
Mitchison, Mr.
Morris, Mr.
Nicolson, Mr. N.
Nugent, Mr.
Page, Mr. .
PoweH, Mr.
Price, Mr. D.
Proberl, Mr.
Ramsden, Mr.
Ross, Mr.
Silvennan, Mr. J.
Skeflington, Mr.
Sparks, Mr.
Temple, Mr.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir C.
Wilkins, Mr.
Willis. Mr.
50
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
STANDiNG COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
TUFSDAY,
2nd
DECEMBER,
1958
Second Silting
,
CONTENTS
CLAUSE I, under consideration when the Committee
adjoum~dtill Thur5day. 4th DecEmber, 1958, at half­
past Ten o'clock.
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
NINEPENCB NET
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of
Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are
requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied, but any correetions which Members
desire in the bound volumes should be marked in this Report.
The copy of the Report containing such corrections must be
returned to the Editor's room, House of Commons,
not later than
Saturday, 6th December, 1958
STRICT ADHERENCE! TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY
FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF
THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS
IN STANDrNG COMMITTEES.
PRINTED AND PUBUSHED BY HER MAJESl Y'S STATIONERY OFFICB
To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway, LONDON, w.c.2
423 Oxford Street, LONDON, w J
13a Castle Street, EDINBURGH, 2
109 S1. Mary Street, CARDIFF
39 King Street, MANCHESTER, 2
Tower Lane, BRISTOL. I
2 Edmund Street, BIRMINGHAM, 3
80 Chichester Street, BELFASI
or from any Bookseller
PRINTED IN
ORBAT BRITAIN
51
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
STANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958
[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
Clause l.-(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION.)
10.30 a.m.
Mr. Arthur Skefliugtou: I beg to
move, in page 2, Jine 10, after" in'lerest ",
to insem:
.. of a resident owner-occupier",
The Chairmao: I cl1ink that this
Amendment will go with the Amend·
ment ,in page 2, line 12, at the end insert:
(3) In
Ihis section .. resident
owneroccupier" has the same meaning as in section
thirty-one of this Act.
The ,two could
discussed together.
conveniently
be
Mr, Skeffington: Yes, Sir Robert: it
would be more conven.ient for me if ,hat
were done.
T,he pUJ1pOse of the Amendment is
obvious. The effect would be to pennit
rompensation under the formula now
proposed by bhe Government to resident
owner-occupiers only. T,he Amendment
in page 2, line 12, which is being
discussed at cl1e same time, provides that
the definition of "resident owner­
occupier" is the same as it is in Sec­
,tion 31 of ,the principal Act.
The Amendment underlines the funda·
me!>tal difference of principle between
the two sides of ,the Committee, whioh
is never very far from the surface, I hope,
when 'We .have discussions about com­
pensation for the acquisition of land by
public authorities. Hon. Members on this
side of the Commit.tee see no reason why
the enhanced value of land to be
acquired should go to corporations, to
estate rompanies or large frceholders
who ,have bhemselves done nothing what­
ever to create the additional value but
who, merely by ,the accident of owner­
ship, receive a very handsome addition
because the community must acquire
land itself in order -to carry on the func­
tions of society. In our view, uhis has
271 t8
Planning Bill
52
always been quite 'Wrong, and we still
believe ,that to be so.
The additional value of land, par­
ticularly near great towns, is created by
the myriad efforl$ of countless people.
Because land is the only commodity
which cannot be extended or increased, it
is. in our view, quite wrong that, when
the community needs further land, it
should have to pay to the individual a
very enhanced value, which is due
entirely to t,he efforts of the community
itself. We believe this to be morally
unjustified.
That view is, on the facts, quite in­
contestable, but there does arise a diffi·
culty in the case of the owner-occupier.
It is quite true that land occupied by a
resident owner 'Will itself have increased
in value over ,the years, particularly if the
ownership ,has 'been of long standing. The
logic of 'What I have said about addi­
tional value due to the efforts of the'
whole community applies in this case as
it does in others, although, of course, the
owner-occupier may himself have contri·
buted to the increased value in this par­
ticular case. Nevertheless. if ,his land is
being acquired by a public authority,
alfhough he may receive in any circum~
stances much more than the figure at
which the land was valued when he
bought it. he still may 'have to buy alter­
native land, and will have to pay the
inflated market price for it. The problem
thus created must be met. It would be
quite wrong for the community, after
taking the land of a resident occupier.
not to give him the 'Wherewithal to
purchase an alternative site for himself
and his 'home.
This is an exceptional case. I agree
that it may seem illogical to put the
owner.occupier in a separate class.
However, if public authorities take the
land of an individual residential owner­
occupier, and he has to have other land
for his home it would be quite wrong
that he should suffer.
The position of the resident owner­
occupier has been recognised in a number
of specific instances already. Indeed, I
start by saying that there may well be a
difference in degree which is so large that
it really becomes a difference in kind.
In the Minority Report of the Depart­
mental Committee which inquired into
leaseholds. the minority signatories said
that they believed that the interest of a
A2
Town and Country
S3
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SKEFFINGTON.j
person in his home was of a kind superior
10 the financial interest of his landlord.
Tha t difference in principle is one which
must be recognised very often in dealing
'with matters of compensation, and it has
been recognised already in a number of
cases.
..uu
In the Requisitioned Houses and
Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, the
owner.occupier of dilapidated premises
receives not only the site value but he
'has some value also for the slum property
itself. It would be out of order for me
to argue whether that was a fair way of
'dealing with that particular case and
whether or not the compensation, as I
think, may have been too generous. It
is a fact that, in the 1955 Act, the special
positioll
of
the
owner-occupier
was
recognised by this Government. We see
no reason. therefore, why an exception
should not be made here, even though it
does mean that there would be two cate­
gories of payment, an extra payment to
the resident owner and a limited payment
to the large owner, the estate company
or cOlporation owning land.
The example I have given is not the
<lnly one where two values for land will
~till exist even when this Bill becomes
law. Under Section 19 of the principal
Act, compensation for refusal is at a
higher rate in these cases than in others.
I hope that there will not be any attempt,
in a Iguing against this Amendment,
to say that it would create a further
anomaly: ~he anomaly is already recog·
nised. The plain fact is that, when the
Government destroyed the financial ar­
rangements of the 1947 Act whereby
some of the increased value of land did
go back to the whole community which
had created it, the Government were
themsel ves getting into this muddle. This
is one ",ay in which we are trying to help
them Ollt, and, at the same time, preserve
some of the increased value for the com­
munity which created it, while seeing,
nevertheless, that the owner-occupier is
not thereby put into an impossible posi­
tion wlten his :home is acquired.
I very much hope that the Minister
will see his way clear to accept the
Amendment. It does provide that the
owner·Dccupier shall be very fairly com­
pensated. but that other owners, whose
interest is financial, should not have the
benefit of the additional value which has
been created by the whole of society.
Planning Bill
S4
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I wish to em·
phasise some of the points so very clearly
made by my hon. Friend the Member
for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffing­
ton). It is obvious that attempts will be
made, as he suggested, to discount the
Amendment on the ground tbat it makes
a distinction bel!Ween the owner-oocupier
and other owners of land which may be
affected. It is right that we should em­
phasise the ways in which this distinction
between the position of the owner-occu·
pier ,and o~hers 'has aLready been accepted
by the Government. My hon. Friend
pomted owt thart, in .lIhe case of owner­
occupiers of slum property, of property
which has been condemned, special
arrangements were made to meet special
difficulties.
When that Measure was being passed,
of course, it was emphasised on all sides
that one did not want to extend the special
compensation beyond the very narrow
group of people who were specially hurt.
We did not want to do anything there
which would prevent local authorities
from going ahead with their slum clear·
ance work, but we felt that there was a
special group of people, who might be
hurt, whose interests should be protected.
The emphasis in this particular Measure,
again, even from the Government spokes­
men who introduced it, has been that
these proposals are inserted because of
the hardship imposed upon certain indi·
viduals. We laill know, of course, itlh·at
those individuals are the owner-occupiers.
We noted, for example, that the Parlia­
mentary Secretary, when he was intro­
ducing the Bill to the House, referred on
more than one occasion to the reason for
the Bill being pressure from individual
persons who had been hurt in that way.
He said, for example, that most hon.
Members had had correspondence from
irate members of the public, and he added
that his right hon. Friend and the Secre­
tary of State for Scotland certainly had
had such correspondence in whioh people
had spoken about the hardship they were
suffering but had put it rather more
violently. The Parliamentary Secretary,
very properly, referred in some detail to
the way in which the difficulties of indi­
viduals might hold local authorities back
in important and valuable development
work.
All those observations clearly refer to
the position of the owner occupier, and
55
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
we on this side accept that position. We
do not wish to do anything to hold local
authorities back from developing land
which they should develop or prevent
them going ahead with thei:" wider plan­
ning proposals. We appreciate, howeve~,
that there ma~ be SItuations ill which mdlvidual hardships might hold them back.
In thIS very BIll, there are proposals
with regard to "blight", particula.r1y
with reference to the owner-occupier,
which again recogni~e the special position
of the owner-occupier. Tbere, as hon.
Members v:ill recollect, the Government
are proposmg that, where local autho­
rities are delayed in going .forward with
their plans, the owner-occupIer should not
be disadvantaged but h~ should be en­
abled to press for acquISitIOn a!ld compen­
satIOn. We agree that that IS probably
a very senSIble proposal. We shall come
to discuss it later. The point is that the
Government have recognised the special
position of the owner-occupier as against
others. It must be admitted that there
are others, corporations and the like, who
will, presumably, be affected by blight
just as owner occupiers are, but we all
agree that the position of the owner­
occupier is quite distinct, in 1he sen~e
that his hardship is a personal hardship
which we wish to remove. It would be
quite impossible, therefore, for the Gov­
ernment to argue that it would be wrong
to insert this provision for extra com­
pensation in the particular cases which
we want to assist.
10.45 a.m.
We wish to make it perfectly clear
that we are attempting to achieve, on
the one side, the encouragement of local
authorities to go ahead with their major
work and. on the other side, the protec­
tion of those who, even in the speeches
of hon. Members opposite, are recog­
nised to be the ones most likely to suffer
from local authority development pro­
posals. Therefore, I hope that, in sup­
porting this Amendment, the Parlia­
mentary Secretary, if he is going to com­
ment upon this, will not object to it on
the grounds of differentiation between
the position of the owner-occupier and
others, which is the essential point of
this Amendment. I am sure that if he
has other suggestions to make with regard
to a better way of achieving this same
purpose, my hon. Friend and others of
us will be glad to hear it. But we want
Planning Bill
56
tn hear from him definitely this moroing
that he is prepared to accept the prm­
ciple of this proposal, and then perhaps
we can get down to discussing in more
detail the administrative arrangements
that might flow from It.
The Parliamentary Sccrel1lry 10 Ibe
Ministry of Housing and Local Govern­
menl (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Sir Robert,
this Amendment is perfectly straight­
forward and it would as the hon. Mem­
ber fa; Hayes and' Harlington (Mr.
Skeffington) said, limit the application of
Clause I to the payment of compensa­
tion on the basis of market value to the
owner-occupier, and would eliminate all
the rest from the market value basis. It
appeared to me that the Amendment
was inspired less out of solicitude for
owner-occupiers and more by a general
dislike for the land owner as such.
Quite clearly, this is a wrecking
Amendment. I do not know whether
the hon. and learned Gentleman asso­
ciates himself with the purpose of this
Amendment, but certainly if it is sup­
ported by the Opposition as a whole I
cannot for the life of me understand
why they did not divide the House on
Second Reading. because, quite obviously,
this is an attack on the principle and
the heart of the Bill. It limits the basis
of market value to the owner-occupier.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Why Should Ihe hon.
Gentlemao suggest that ,~his ,is a wreck­
ing Amendment ,when we are applying
to this portion of the Bill the principle
accepted in relation to other sections?
Mr. Bevins: I am suggesting that it
1S a wrecking Amendment heeamse it
would clearly restriot the application of
Clause I (I) of the Bill olD the owner­
occupier.
Mr. G. R. Milcbison: That is not
wrecking.
Mr. Bevins: It wrecks the application
of ,the major par,t of -the BiN. What I
was going to say was that I hope -to he
able to show the hon. Gentlemen who
have spoken to this Amendment that in
any event it is misconceived. The case
for this was argued by -the hon. Member
for Widnes ~Mr. MacColl) on Second
Reading, when at one point he was dis­
cussing the iniqui-ties of derating. There
was an intervention by the ·hon. Member
57
Town and Cou",ry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BEVINS.]
for Aibordare ~Mr. Prdbort). Then the
hon. Gentleman-and I have refreshed
my memory over this~had quite a lot
to say a·bout the f·aimess of ·the existing
syst<ml as applied to everybody. I was
quite unabIe :to decide M the [lime
whether he was refering to cases of blight,
as ·his hon. Friend may have .been, or
the strntgh,tfoT'Ward case of compulsory
acquisition. Whiohever be f,he case. I
am quite Sure that ,this Amendment we
are discussing this mornin,g is based
upon ,m entirely ,false argument.
AfteraH, ,the 'Teal ~ardships ~hat oocur
to the owner-occupier'. propenty through
the applicatiOJl of planning are cases of
blight, and those 'are adequately pro­
vided for in a later section of ,the Bill.
I ,think .vhe 'hon. Gentlemen on bl>th sides
will agree that the majority of cases of
hardship affecting owner-occupiers are
cases where an owner is either unable to
sell, or is unable to sell at a reasonable
price, because of the fOT'Ward planning
requirements of a local 'authority. As I
say, we are dealing with chose cases and,
I .h"pe ,the Oommittee wiH nhink, on a
satisfactory basis.
When one turns to rthe ordinary case
of the owner-oocupier who is subject to
cOnlipulsory purchase procedures, then
we find that, as a general rule, ~he owner­
occupier does in vaet receive the market
value from the acquiring local authority.
Mr. Mitchison : Now?
Mr. Bevins: Yes, now, because in the
vast majority of cases affecting nhe houses
of owner-occupiers, existing use v:alue and
market value are ide"tical figures, because
3S a general rule there is no development
value.. In fact, the cases of injustice
under the existing law are ~hosc where
Vhere is a real disparity beeween exi""ing
use value and market value. Those are
cen~ainly not in the generality of cases,
but are rare cases of owners of land, as
such, and particularly on !!he fringes of
our great cities.
Mr. Mitchison : Farmers, in fact.
Mr. Bevins: Very often, yes. This
Amendment. as I see it, would largely
inval,idate the principle of Pant I of the
Bill-that is to say, that public authorities
should pay the market value for property
whoever happens to own it. It is, there­
fore, ,an Amendment whiCh my right hon.
Friend cannot possibly accept.
Planning Bill
58
Before I sit down, I should like to
emphasise once again that the hon. Gen­
tleman who put forward this Amendment
this morning was really standing on his
head, because the cases of inju""ice under
~he present law are precisely the cases
'Which he would cut out of this Bill, and
the cases where injustice does Dot occur
as a general rule-that is, the case of the
owner-occupier-he would leave wit'hin
the terms of the Bill. With the grealest
of respect, I suggest to him that he has
che position wrong.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I think the hon.
Gentleman has got the pos;tion wrong.
Before he starts accusing this side of get­
ting the position wrong, I think he ought
rto get the position right. To gee Ihe
p<>sition righl, whM he and his hon.
Friend are proposing to do is to hand
out largesse to persons who are not owner­
occupiers but landowners. land specula­
tors and a whole series of vested interests,
whose only purpose in holding land is to
spend as liltle as they can upon it, and
to sit and wait ullJtil a value which the
oommunity has created falls into their
lap like a ripe fruit from the tree. We
do not believe that speculaJtors and their
type should walk away with values which
,they have done nothing themselves to
crerute.
This Amendment is designed precisely
to exclude those ,types from the benefit
of a higher price for their land if a local
'authority requires to buy it. It does not
go, if I may say so, quite as far as we
would like it to go. At least, in this I
speak for myself, and I think I can speak
for my oolleagues. I !!hink the types I
have mentioned will, if our Amendment
is agreed to, reap a considerable reward
for something fhat Ithey ,have done ,little.(o
achieve: namely, we shall fall back upon
the old basis of the exisoing use value
which gives them development value as
at 1947, and we shall give them one­
seventh, which I think nhat is far too
much. Nevertheless, that is the basis
upon which 'Persons and companies of the
,type that I have outlined wlll be treated.
That is the basis of compensaJtion upon
IMhioh we shall fall back. I !!hink that is
a generous price to pay for land in the
possession of the types of individuals and
companies that I have mentioned.
The difference between the Committee
is this: we believe that, where the com­
mun,ity and ,~he public, by Itlheir hfe and
their activity, and by their residence and
59
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
the work which they do in the locality,
appreciate the value of land and bring
greater value to it, they, and "ot the
landowner and the land specullliling companies are entitled to the value which
they create. That is where we part company. We believe that the public interest
needs ~o be protected where .the public
creates and are responsible for the
development value in land. We have
made an exception of the resident owneroccupier, because Ibe is in quite a different
category altogether. He is a man who
lives in the locality, and I would go
Rerhaps a little further than our Amend.
ment goes. I would say that ,the owner
who lives upon his land, and who makes
a considerable contribution 'himself out of
his own pocket to enhance the values in
his area, should also be considered. But
there are too many absentee landowners
.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Too many land·
owners.
Mr. Sparks: Well, yes. There are too
many speculative companies set up speci.
fically for the purpose of sitting and wai.ting until the value of the land appreciates
so that they can cash in and walk away
with something to which we do not
consider they are entitled. Therefore, I
think our Amendment is in the public
interest, and that the attitude of hon.
Gentlemen opposite is not-it is in the
interest of private vested interests in land.
11hat is the gulf between us.
Mr. Mitcbison: I can assure the
Parliamentary Secretary that if he sees
the name of my hon. Friend the Member
for Widnes (Mr. MacColI) put down to an
Amendment and mine omitted, ·he should
draw no inference from that, any more
than ,he should draw an inferen~e from
the converse case whIch he will find
later on .'Lll the Order Paper. We put
down thIS Amendment delIberately because we wanted to find out ,how far
th~ G~vernment were prepared to go 1.Il
thIS BIll, and we wanted, by means of
thIS Amendment, ,to get from them what
their view of the position of the owner·
'OCcupier was. We have got the Government's view, and we note it. It is this:
that except as regards planning blight.
this Bill makes no difference whatever in
practice to the position of the owneroccupier.
Mr. Bevins : No, I am sorry. 'I:hehon.
and learned Gentleman must not jump to
Planning Bill
60
that oonclusion. I said that in the
majority of cases it is the position at
present ~hat in the oase of the owner­
occupier existing use value and market
value is ~he same. But that is not to say
that there are not oases at presem where,
for example, the owner-<Jccupier is on
the main road, where ,there may not be
development value. In a case such as
that the market value would be higher.
Those, of course, are the minority of
cases, but ~ey do exist.
11.0 a.m: ' .
.
Mr. Mtlchison • If I mISUnderstood the
Pa"iIameIlJtary Secretar~, I acce~ what he
says now as. hIS <:<'Dsldered vIew.. But
we can go this far .m 'assessmg hlS vlew­
.that ID ~e vast maJo~lty of cases of owner
occup~tIOn ·thlS BIll lS not gomg to make
any dIfference. I see the pomt whIch he
has m mmd.
On the ~er hand, those are the 'hard
cases to ",hich my right hon. Friend the
Leader of ilie Opposition referred in
reply ~o the GracIous. Speech, and. th?se
are the hard cases. wh1ch we on thlS side
h,,:ve J?a'tICularly m mmd. Moreover, I
clunk It 1S farr comment. to say that those
are ~he hard cases to WhIOh hon. Members
speakmg ID support of thIS BIll and
prevIOus Bill~ have pa'tlcularly drrected
public attenuon. They have not callc:d
a·tlentlOn to the fact. tIh'at the BIll will
also be of very consIderable advantage
to large landowners who happen to
possess propemy on the frmges of towns.
and whose moral claim to get full market
value, "'hatever the legal position may
be, is undoubtedly muoh less strong in
the eyes of the public, and therefore
much ·less useful to the pamy opposite
by way of electoral appeal.
Lt was wi,th iliat in mind ·tfhat we put
down this Amendment. We must recog­
nise, as I had in mind when I asked the
Parliamentary Secretary about fanners,
that it is difficult to draw the line between
a resident owner-occupier in a wide sense
and people "'ho are speculating in land
on ,the fringes of towns.
. .
.
.
.
. ThlS lS fundamentally. an ,IllogIcal BIll
1TI thart 'It pro\"ldes a different standard
of value for the purchase on compulsory
acqUISItIOn and for a paym.ent on the
refusal of plannmg penn~sSlon. . In
another part of the Bill there IS a partlcu,
lar dIfference between the reSIdent owner
occupier and other people, but I would
agree, in a different oonneotion.
61
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHlSON.]
lWe have listened to IWha.t the ParJia­
men.lary Secretary had to say and our
feeling can be sununanised in this way:
we ·go on resenting the omission from
this BiU of any provision aboUlt better­
ment. We are not <the only people .to do
so. Local '"uthorities are writing to
IDe!J1bers to stress jlI.9l that point. It was
a pl int ,which caused us considerable
diflL<ulty in our al~itude 10 ,the BiB on
S""a~d Reading. We came to the con·
clus:i>n .that the position about beHennent
had been radically altered from our point
of ~iew because we have accepted ·that
.laJ<alion of capital gains is something that
.we cansider righ,t, 'and, on the whole, a
,l>etttt: way of dealing with the fund a­
meoal problem of betterment than ,trying
to c:IJ it through local authorities.
ne Silkin Act would have 'worked if
giva possibly a little more time and
sorrJe minor amendmen1s. Be tb3Jt as it
'D1Ia), our vieIW a'bout capital gains has
neessarily altered our attitude to the best
melkJd of collecting betterment, which
everfbody recognises morally ought to
·be o<OlIooted. In one ,form or another, we
·find ourselves harking back .to it: and
tho- will be occasions in our proceedings
on he BiU when we Shall <try to get for
the ~ocal authorities some of the more
ob""us oaoes where an improvCllIlent has
'bee: made and ,the 'benefit has been col­
.jeold by private ,interest of some SON,
and'oVhich ought to be taken into account.
'J'.e second point we have in mind
rela'es to the difficulty of drawing the
line in those cases. Having had this use.
£ul tiscussion, I think it would 'be best
if CJi)' hon. F,iend would ""ithdraw this
AllJtndment, and we will consider this
mUer again in .the light of what ,the
Ralfi'amellltary Secretary has said.
t'\ll the Committee will recognise that
1110re is a mo,al difference between a
·faJ"ner 001 the outskirts of a town and
sooeone who has bought land for specu­
lal:i.ie purposes Ibeca use it as on ,the out­
ski'fs of a town, and has paid a price on
tllef'OOting of the compensation 'as it was
beEore this Bill was introduced: that is
to iaiy, a man who is going to make a
proit purely out of a change in 'legislation
abem compensation,and who bought on
,tIle chance that he would do so. One
gob a farmer owning a small 'amount of
laIII~. who lives on the ~arm, does his own
Wl»K and will not qualify as the resident
Planning Bill
62
owner-occupier because his fields lWill be
a separate hereditament, hut who really
is not in a very dilferemt position from
the man in a single house 'belonging to
himself. We would like to reconsider this
in ~he light of what has heen said.
Mr. Skeffington: Before asking leave
to withdraw this Amendment, I would
make it clear that this is not a wrecking
Amendment to the principle of the Bill.
We were and still are very solicitous for
,the difficulties of owner.occupiers. The
fact that they find themselves in difficul­
ties over compensation is not their fault.
It is the muddle in which the Govern·
ment have got themselves in interfering
with the betterment provisions of the
1947 Act. While we want to see justice
done to them, we are opposed to handing
over vast sums of public money to vested
interests. I want to refer in detail to the
principle which I believe ought to govern
the compensation in these matters. It
will be found on page 126 of the Minority
Report of the inquiry into leaseholds,
where the minority signatories say:
". . . we consider that nowadays, in general.
the landlord's interest is an investment or
finaneial interest whereas the tenant's interest
is for use and occupation: the landlord's in­
terest is in what he can get out of the property.
the tenant's interest is in the property itself."
That ;s the principle which ought to
govern compensation, and, so long as that
point of view is understood by the Par­
liamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by lea>e, withdrawn.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in
page 2, line 10, to leave out from .. land"
to "day" in line II and to insert:
.. where the compensation has not been agreed
by the acquiring authority and the owner or.
in default of agreement. determined by the
Lands Tribunal before the thirtieth."
This is an Amendment to Clause I (2)
of the Bill. Subsection (2) brings within
the Bill only those cases of compulsory
acquisition in which the notice to tleat
was served after the twenty-nin·th day of
October, 1958. The result of that will be
that there will be several different eate­
gories of cases on which compensation is
to be paid, depending on the date of the
notice to treat. First, there will be those
cases in which there was a pre-1947
notice to treat. They are dealt with in a
later Clause. I have on my notes that
the compensation in that case would be
I
.. E.U.V.+U.B.D.V.++ V.B.D.V."
63
2 DECEMBER 1958
Town and Country
think I can correctly translate that as the
existing use value plus the unexpended
balance of the development value plus
one·seventh of the unexpended value of
the development value. That would be
on the 1954 basis.
Mr. WilIiam Ro.. : Can we have it in
Gaelic now?
Mr. Page: The hon. Member will see
it in the Report.
There will be a second category, the
post-1947 notice to treat, but pre·1955.
In those cases the compensation would
be on existing use value plus the Part VI
claim plus one-seventh of the Part VI
claim. The third case is the post-1954
notice to treat but pre-29th October,
1958. In these cases it will be the existing
use value plus the Part VI claim plus
one-seventh of the Part VI claim. There
is a fourth category: the notice to treat,
served after 29th October, 1958, which
will provide market value compensation.
There will be, if the Bill stands as it is,
these four systems of compensation run­
ning at the same time, and running for
some considerable time, for it is not a
matter of a year or two during which these
calculations will have to he made. It may
be five, ten, or fifteen years. That seems
to be not only very confusing but also
to be liable to give rise to resentment and
.a certain amount of grievance between
different property owners. Neighbours
with
similar
properties
may
receive
different compensation based entirely
upon the date on which -they were served
with notice to treat.
One may perhaps even add a fifth
category. It is possible for a local autho­
rity to withdraw a notice to treat during a
certain period after the notice of claim
and serve another notice to Heat. So we
might get cases where perhaps one pro·
perty owner has to proceed under an old
notice to treat and another property
owner, after the local authority has
received his notice of claim, either in com~
passion for him or genuinely having
second thoughts, may withdraw his notice
to treat, serve another falling after
October, 1958 and hring him within the
market basis of this Bill.
11.15 a.m.
What is a notice to treat and why IS It
such a vital step in the proceedings of
compulsory purchase that it has been
chosen in subsection (2) as the turning
Planning Bill
64
point? One has to go back to the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, Section
18, to find out what is a notice to treat.
In that Section it is described as a notice
to the property owner to give the local
authority particulars about himself and
his property and generally in answer to the
demand for compulsory acquisition. But
it is only towards the end of the Section
that it states that the local authority
should put in that notice that it is willing
to treat for the purchase of the property.
From that phrase at the end of the Section
this may be called the notice to treat.
However, it is merely one of the steps
in the procedure of compulsory acquisi­
tion, and I should have thought it means
nothing whatever to the layman who is
having his property acquired. To the
professional man, the lawyer and
surveyor, it may be a vital point in the
process of compulsory acquisition, but
to the man whose property is being taken,
the vital point is when he has agreed to
the compensation or when he has had
judgment on it given by the Lands
Tribunal.
That is the important point to him.
That is where he reaches some finality
and where he would say, "I cannot go
back on that, I have agreed it" or "I
have had it decided for me. That is the
point of no return ". In our Amendment
we want to make that the point, the vital
dividing line under subsection (2).
This Bill, as I understand it, is
intended to deal with future compulsory
acquisition. No. one thinks of the notice
to treat as the point of compulsory
acquisition. It is quite an arbitrary line
to draw. I appreciate that one must draw
some arbitrary line in such a Bill, but
that line should mean something to those
concerned. I do not think it will mean
anything if the line is drawn at the date
of the notice to treat. It will mean some·
thing to those concerned, however, both
the local authorities and the landowners,
if it is the date on which the compensa­
tion is agreed or settled.
It might he said that those who have
been served witb a notice to treat in the
past, and who have already settled their
claims, agreed to compensation or had
it decided against them, would resent this
proposed Amendment. They might say,
"We have been reasonable over it, we
have agreed it, but the fellow who has been
awkward and has been standing out after
65
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. PAGE.]
the Il.otice to treat is to benefit under this
Measure". I do not think that would
cause resentment among those who have
settled their claims. A man might kick
himself for having agreed. but I do not
think: he will kick my right hon. Friend
'for bringing his neighbour within the
terms of this Measure.
Agai.. it migbt be said that if the
Ame ndrnent were accepted the local
auth<Jrities would resent it. for they had
gone ahead with plans on the old basis
of c~mpensation and ought not to be
asked t. carry out those plans on the new
basis. I can envisage cases of overspill
agreements which have been based as
betl\' een two local authorities on the old
basis: of compensation and the receiving
auth()rity might hold the other authority
to 11>, agreement regardless of the law as
it will be under this Bill. However. I
would .ot have thought that was a good
argu.J11oent.
NClothing else in,the'localauthorities' plans
to d~velop is so tied to a certain figure
and they have .to take into account in­
creass in costs ,in various ways.
For
eX2D1ple, labour costs are not so >lied to
the figure they anticipated when they
mail, ·their plans. If it is felt that local
alLtl>!rities will be put into difficulties by
this A-mendment. Ithere is no reason why
ther could not be given an escape clause,
a pr-oviso to this Amendment, extending
thei.,\»wers to withdraw previous "otices
to t.,eat.
Tle hon. and 'learned Member for Ket­
tering (Mr. Mitchison) looks puzzled. He
will recolleot that local authorities have
PO"''' to withdraw notices to treat only
for li~ weeks after they have received
the lotioe to claim. If tha,t time has
expire<!. the 'landowner can force the pro­
cedure on without regard to the local
auti:Jority. I am suggesting that if rtIis
Arneadment were accepted the local
au,thority could have a longer time to
consider whether it wishes to go on with
the compulsory acquisition under this
Bill. \I' hich provides for market value
coIJllpe!1Sation. or whether it would wish
to t.hink again.
It: might be said also ,that some people
wotllld be worse off under our Amend­
me",! than under the Bill as it stands.
If t-hat is so, and I personally cannot
thjll.k of any cases in which it would
Planning Bill
66
be. surely those who have not agreed
as yet, and would now find themselves
worse off, are in -the same position as
those who have agreed but would have
been 'better off if ,rhey had not agreed,
There can be no reasonable complaint
wben a person is overtaken by reforms
in the law of this nature. The Amend­
ment is not retrospective legislation. It
is ·taking the position as at .the publica­
tion of the Bill. It is setting the ques·
tion ,then. has compensation been
settled or agreed at ,that date? That
seems to me something which the public
generally would understand. and that if
we set any other date i,t will be misunder.
stood and grievances will be felt.
I do not expect the Minister necessarily
to answer us on this Amendment at once
because I do "ot think these arguments
have been deployed previously. I hope
he will consider ,them carefully and see
whether the Amendment needs a few
provisos added to it before it is included
in ,the Bill. This is a very importaI1ll
ma,tter and a very essential one to this
Bill, not so much from the numbers
or the money involved because, according
,to my ,information there may 'be some·
thing over 5.000 properties involved if
the Amendment is accepted, properties
w:hich would not be included as
the Bill stands but whicb would
be included in the Amendment.
I
am asking lha't the IpeQple con­
cerned should be treated fairly. and I ca.n­
not feel that any others conoerned in
compulsory acquisi,tion would feel a
grievance if those people were treated
fairly under '1his Bill.
Sir Colin Thomton-Kemsley: In sup­
porting my hon. Friend the Member for
Crosby (Mr. Page). I suggest that we
should look at the origin of the Bill.
There is no doubt that it has come to us
because of the widespread demand which
was evidenced both before and after the
Private Member's Bill which my hon. and
gallant Friend the Member for Glou­
cestershire. South (Captain Corfield) pre­
sented in the House of Commons earlier
this year. ,that there should be fair com­
pensation for land compulsorily acquired,
and that such fair compensation ought
to ,be the value which the market would
give for that land if it were placed on the
market, subject to the condition that it
should be in accordance with the pur­
poses allowed by the development plan.
67
Town and Cauntry
2 DECEMBER 1958
That position, let us be frank, was
resIsted by the Government at that lIme.
They .were not happy about the form of
the BIll presented by my hon. and gal.
lant Friend. They said that a change of
this kind ought not to be made by way
of a Pnvate Member's Bill and that they
were themselves making a close study
of the matter. That study went on
throughout the summer and autumn and
it has resulted in the Government being
convmced that there is a strong case for
gettmg on to a basis of firm market value
in the case of compulsory purchase and
that in the interests of justice and fair
dealing there ought to be an alteration
in the law.
The reasons must have been very corn·
pelling to make the Government decide
that ·they would go forward with such
legislation in what is likely to be the last
full Parliamentary year before a General
Election. Everyone of us knows that
Governments are reluctant, and wisely
reluctant. to embark upon controversial
legislation on ·the eve of a General Elec­
tion. I have no inside knowledge about
this, but my concl~sion must be that the
Government have only reached this deci·
sion because they are convinced that
there is an overwhelmingly strong case
for the introduction of legislation on
these lines.
The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope
be will soon come to the point of the
Amendment.
11.30 a.m.
Sir C. Thomton-Kem<ley: Sir Robert.
I am trying to develop a logical argu·
ment in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Rnss: Do not try to do the
impossible.
Sir C, Thnmtnn.Kemsley : If I am right
about this, I think it must be the desire of
the Government to include as many
claimants whose claims have not already
been settled within the scope of the new
proposals. The Government have laid
down in the Bill one way of doing that.
They say it should apply to all cases
where notice to treat was served after 29th
October, 1958. As everyone knows, there
are a very great number of such cases.
My hon. Friend said the number was
something of the order of 5,000. I do
Planning Bill
68
not know the number, but it might be
double that; I do not think it would be
more than 10,000.
.
Many of us would like to see the new
bas,s applIed to all cases of compen­
sat Ion where the legal vestmg of the .I~nd
was not completed by the acqlllnng
authonty by 29th October last. As my
hon. Fnend saId, there are cases where
the amount of compensatIOn has already
been settled, somelImes settled after refer·
ence to the Lands Tnbunal, and perhaps
it would be unfair to suggest that those
cases should be reopened, although of
course the compensation in many cases
was accepted under duress, and because it
was known that the acquiring authority
had compulsory powers and those were
the best terms which could be obtained
under the existing legislation.
My hon. Friends and I have put this
Amendment in these terms because we
think that probably on balance there is a
great deal to be said for not reopening
cases where compensation has been
assessed and agreed. I want to be frank
with my hon. Friend the Member for
Crosby. I do not pretend that we who
have put the Amendment down have got
the right answer. It is extraordinarily
difficult to achieve fairness here and per­
haps we have not got it yet. If I say
what I think ideally the position should
be, that might help the Committee to see
how we have thought about this matter.
We have all thought about it because we
want fairness. Hon. Members opposite
would want fairness as between one
claimant and another.
I ·l1hink that within a period of, say,
six months, which might be more or less,
after the coming into force of ~he Aot
the acquiring authority should be
~equired, in terms which might be laid
down by regulations made by .the
Minister, to notify all owners of land
upon whom notices .to treat ihave been
served and are stiB outstanding and
where the compensation has not actually
been agreed or determined by the Lands
Tribunal,lto say .that the claimants have
,t!he right to eleot within a certain period
whether the compensation should be
assessed under the pre-Act arrangements
or under the new arrangements laid down
under the Act.
Mr. Ross: Is this in the Amendment?
69
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Sir C. ThomtoD-Kemsley: I am
advocallllg tbe Amendment before the
CommHtee., Subject to what you say..Sir
Robent. I thInk I am nght m deploymg
an argument In favour of a change along
the lines of ,the Amendment. It seems to
me that where the owner decides to pro.
ceed on ,the new basis. the acquiring
autha<ity qu!Jht to be free. if it desires.
to withdraw the notice ~o treat. As my
hon. Friend told lhe Commintee. local
aut~lOritjes have a six ,months period in
which to do nhat. I think with him that
that perjod is too short. •
,
.
.
I. shall not go mto more detaIl. but the
poSItIOn 15 not satIsfaotory at present. I
am not real1~ con vmced that tibe Amend­
ment Itself IS satisfactory. The whole
position needs ,looking at again in con­
junction with Glauses 12 and 13. We
might well shorten those Clauses and
~ake par,ts out of the Bill if we arrive at
a satisfaotory conclusion. In support­
ing ,this Amendment, I 'add 00 what my
hon. Friend said the hope that the
Minister will h'ave a careful look at it to
se~ if we cannot get sometJhing a Iit.ne
faIrer than we have at present.
.
Mr. A •. J. Irvme: I should have
Ihought ~hls Amendment on analysis was
c!eady an instance of retrospective legis­
lation.
Unless I misapprehend, it
would operate very unfairly, particularly
to looal authorities.
Local aut·horiti.. have detennined
upon compulsory purchase of sites hav­
mg referred ill all the oircumstances erist­
ing at ,the date of nheir determination.
One of the important matters 00 which
they have regard at the date of their
d~termination is rtihe existing current com­
pulsory purchase price. That is a highly
relevantfaotor in their deliberation, ,nd
they have applied .thili minds ,00 it. They
have had regard to exactly ,that con­
sideration also. no doubt, in determining
what areas shall be designated on
development plans as areas of compul­
sory acquishion. It seems entirely wrong
that in cases where local aullhorities have
proceeded in that way and determined
upon the desirability of the wmpulsory
acquisition of ceI'!tain sites in me context
of existing current compulsory purchase
price---Mr. Norman Cole: I am sure the hon.
Member would not wish to go on record
as saying that any local authority deter­
Planning Bill
70
mines how much it will acquire by com­
pulsory acquisition. but rather how much
it will acquire either by negotiation or
compulsory acquisition.
Mr. Irvine : I do not disagree with that.
What I say is tha.t among a v.:hole lot
of ~the~ relevant cIrcumstances In deter­
mmmg LtS pollcy on compulsory acquisi­
tlOn a local authority will have regard
ObVIOusly to the question of the value,
the amo~nt which under cer~~iJ? circum.
stances, If compulsory acqUIsItion takes
place. might be paid. In working out
that calculation it is perfectly evident
that local authorities can only have regard
to the current law goverrnng the com­
pulsory purchase price.
Sir C. Thomton-Kemsley: That would
be true if they had any means of know­
ing what the price would be. but no
authority knows what the price will be.
In any case. the compensation under the
n~w legislation which we are proposing
wIll be less than under the existing legis­
lation simply because of the existence
of Part VI c1~ims. The hon. Member
.s wrong In thmkIng that local authori­
ties can be influenced by knowing what
the land will cost them
.
Mr. Irvine: The hon. Member has
made his point, but J am bound to say
I should have thought that in practice
it was almost invariably within the know­
ledge of the acquiring authority what
would be the approximation of cost. The
whole point is that assessments of
approximation-although, because of the
absence of knowledge about the Part VI
provision. they might not be exact­
form a very important fact wmch takes
place within the context of what is the
existing current state of the law about."
the compulsory purchase price. If in
this Bill there were proposed a method
of determining compensation which did
not involve a substantial increase in some
cases in the amount to be paid. there
would not be anytmng like the same ob­
jection to this Amendment as there is in
fact. but the position under the Bill is
that higher prices would have to be paid.
It seems to me. and, no doubt. my
hon. Friends, a quite unreasonable thing
that where a local authority has desig­
nated land for compulsory purchase on a
development plan or merely determined
that there shall be compulsory acquisi­
tion and, bearing in mind all the current
71
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
and contemporary problems of the sort
of amount of compensation likely to have
to be paid-in instances of that kind
where agreement has not been reached
between the authority and the owner or
a determination has not been made by
the Lands Tribunal-the whole of the
transaction that has commenced with the
notice to treat should terminate.
I should have thought it clearly an
instance of retrospective legislation for
the reason that rights accrue at the date
of the notice to treat. If the Amend·
ment were carried, there would be a
penalty in terms of the higher pecuniary
consideration for the land being acquired
retrospectively on local authorities which
had determined their policy in a context
-entirely different from that upon which,
if the proposition were carried, would be
the policy to which one would have
regard in determining compensation to
be paid.
Mr, John M, Temple: I would reply
to the argument of the hon. Member for
Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) by saying at
the outset that the cost of the land to
be acquired by the local authority is only
one of the factors to be considered. The
local authority, in setting about the
acquisition of land, first considers for
what it requires the land. That is the
supervening factor. If it decides that the
land is to be acquired for this purpose,
it is reasonably prepared to pay the price
which may be determined either by the
Lands Tribunal or under a new system
Planning Bill
and the notice to treat itself are well
known among lawyers and local autho­
rities, but the date of determination of
compensation is the date on which every­
one understands a bargain to have been
sealed.
If we stop at that point, we shall be
creating rather fewer anomalies ,than
would be created if we perpetuated a
system of compensation which would, in
effect, be running on over a period of
years but which would be hased on
various bases of compensation assessed
not on fair market value but on the
assessments which have been so carefully
set out by my hon. Friend the Member
for Crosby. For those reasons, I support
the Amendment.
11.45 a.m.
There is a related point which my hon.
Friend the Member for Crosby just
touched upon, namely, the revocability
or otherwise of the notices to treat. As
I understand it, notices ~o treat can he
withdrawn by an acquiring authority if
the owner consents. I understand that
the withdrawal of a first notice to treat
does not amount to' the abandonment of
compulsory powers.
Therefore, we
envisage the situation in which local
authorities might come to gentlemen's
agreements with the vendors of land.
mittee wants to see the fewest anomalies
I feel that the possibility of such gentle·
men's agreements being come to ~hrough·
out the country might create anomalies
as between one local authority and
another. In my view, the only thing
which would deter a local authority from
the withdrawal of notices to treat would
be the thought that the Minister might
disapprove and refuse loan consent. As
matters stand, if local authorities adopted
these gentlemen's agreements, they could
bring compensation under the new basis
of fair market value~
created.
I realise that as drawn, the
compensation from 29th October will be
the fair market value. I think that i,
understood very widely throughout the
country, but by itself a notice to treat is
not in fact a contract of sale.
I agree
entirely with my hon. Friend the Mem­
ber for Crosby (Mr. Page). The most
important date as understood by most
I may say here that I have had repre­
sentations from many people, both inside
and outside the House. In particular, I
have had representations from the
Country Landowners' Association in
support of the words proposed. The
Country Landowners' Association goes
on to say, in a very fair appraisal of the
situation, that
of compensation.
This Bill has been welcomed very
largely far outside the confines of this
Committee as a Bill which combines the
features of sanity and justice. I appre·
ciate the very great difficulty in thi,
Amendment about determination of a
starting point. Everyone in this Com·
owner occupiers and landowners is the
date on which compensation is agreed or
determined. The date of notice to treat
"There is ample statutory precedent for
drawing the line at the date of the notice to
treaL"
72
73
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Planning Bill
74
[MR. TEMPLE.]
Fm all these reasons. I should like to
have 1II0re detailed information on this
particdar point so tbat I can make up
my mind how to vote on ,the Amendment.
The hon. Member for North Angu~. and
Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said
that there were probably about 10.000
cases involved here if the Amendment
were agreed to.
1\1... Sparks: We have listened to a
very eloquent appeal from the land­
ownefi~ re"presentatives on the benches
opposite. What they are attempting to
do is 10 filch a bit more from the public
purse.
Sir C. Thomton.Kemsley: Five thou­
sand.
M... Ross: Quite blatantly, too.
M... Sparks: They are not satisfied
with merely compelling their Government
to introduce a Bill the effects of which
operate, in this case. from 29th October.
Havillg scored one victory over their
,Govemment, they are now hoping to
score another one. although of a minor
charalter.
W'f should we go back and make the
proviions of the Bill retrospective? My
hon. tnd learned Friend the Member for
Live1]ool. Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)
madea valid point about the position of
localmthorities. Local authorities. under
their developmeot plans. oormally have
desiglated certain lands for public
acqu'ition. It is often in the interests of
the ""ner of the land that the local
autn<";'ty should serve notice to treat and
not b in too much hurry to arrive at, or
agr"". a figure for compensation. Land
value, vary a great deal, and it may well
De ill the interests of some owners of
land. tilat the acquisition should not be too
swi;tl, undertaken.
It ! entirely wrong to contend that the
effectof Clause I should be made retro­
spect~e. It is unfair to local authorities,
beeaUle, when local authorities acquire
lami IT think of acquiring land. aHhough
it is luite true that they have in mind
some purpose for which they wish to
acqule it, it is true also that the cost
invoo'ect in what they want to do is a
very- important factor.
When local
autnaities take the initial steps to acquire
lalld.,they have a fairly clear idea of the
priceto be paid for it. District valuers
are Dl1 fools; they are men at the very
top (JI their profession. and what they do
nOI k,ow about values is not worth know­
ing. They advise local authorities from
time" lime on the financial implications
of th, acquisition of land and what they
proplSe to do with it.
Mr. Sparl<s: I think ,that the hon.
Gentleman said that tbere would probably
be about 10.000. However. let IUS say
about 7.500. I should very much like to
know what is involved here. It may be
a considerable sum of money which will
have to come from the public purse and
be transferred to the country landowners.
We ought to know. I do not know
whether the right hon Gentleman is in a
position to tell us what the financial im­
plications are. Whatever they are. it is
manifestly unfair to saddle local authori­
ties with this additional financial burden
which was not foreseen M Ithe time when
notice to treat was issued.
Moreover. ~he matter must ·be assessed
against ,rhe hackground of all ~he agree­
ments which.,have already been arrived at
over '~he ·retrospective ,period. One can­
not. in justice to all other owners of land
concerned. say. despite the fact that an
agreement ,has been arrived at. "Tihat is
just ,000 bad. ,We are shutting -the door
on you, but we are opening it to
others." One would have ,to consider a.1I
those orher cases where agreement 'had
been arrived at.
The Amendment would oreate a very
w.ide problem. Indeed, in ,the ultimate,
it might well mean placing an extra
financial burden upon local au~horitjes
",hich ,tihey did -not foresee at :nbe -time of
service of the notice -to -treat. a burden
whioh some of .us consider. in any case.
to be an unfair burden to place upon lihem
now. We accept that. in a BiB of this
kind, ,there must he a datum ,line; one
must start 'Som_here. In so far as ,~he
date is speoified-it is related, I think, to
the time w.hen ,the BiH was presented to
the House-i-t i'S a fair and reasonable
dare to include. Both local authoruties
and owners of land hencefo~h know ",hat
.the situation is. We must start some­
where. But' ,to open wide the door and
make the Bill have a retrospective effect
would create an enormous number of dif.
ficulcies for aH concemed. I 'hope -t'hat
the Minister will not accept the Amend·
ment.
75
r
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
Planning Bill
76
The Minister of Housing and Local ineJ<plicable ,why some are in 'and some
Government and Minister for Welsh are out.
Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): It may be
Applying myself now strictly to the
convenient if I rise at this stage of Utis
Amendment,
I think we must bear in
interesting debate. As I made clear on
of neighbours in similar
mind
the
case
Second Reading, the Governmenfs desire
circumstances.
In one case, Ilhe com­
is to See justice done. Having decided on
pensation
may
have
been settled bclore
the principle of 'nhe Bili we wished to
the
date
of
the
Bill.
In the other case,
introduce, our task was ·to .try to find a
firm line which could be sustained on through delay which may have been
grounds of principle and 'reason, a firm . entirely ,fortuitous and '\Vh ich cannot be
line that would determine which cases ascribed ·to any specific cause or personal
fell wir.hin uhe new system and ,whioh interventKJD, the .rna tter may not have
been settled. Under ,the Amendment,
would fall under Mle old.
those tlWo individuals whose land was
The Govemmen't are perlectly prepared being purchased, who had received notice
to examine Ibe malter and see whet,her to treat on the same day, ·would come off
there is a fairer and more rntIional line differently.
~han uhe one contained in .the BiB. In
saying that, .however, I am not giving a 12 noon
There. has been some argument a bout
promise 'in advance that the outcome of
t,hat examination will necessarily be that how many cases would be covered by
we shall find a better hne t,han ·the one the Amendment. I do not think that it
is any use speculating, because, at this
·in ·the Bill
stage of things, it would be quite impos­
My ·hon. F:riend ,the M<m1ber for Crosby sible for anyone to judge. There will
'(Mr. Page) and others of my hon. Friends be a considerable number. What one
who have spoken have all very frankly can say with certainty. of course, is that
said ,that the precise terms of the Amend­ there will be a far greater number over
ment may be open ,to objection. tMy hon.
Friend ,the Member for North Angus and the same period of ten years which
Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) had in fact been settled before the date
managed, I think, to make a further sug­ of this Bill. There seems to me a strong
gestion about a line of country which case against reopening any settled cases.
might be explored. We are quite ready Tha t was recognised by my hon. Friend
to explore those matters ·and \SCe whether when he moved his Amendment. He
there is a more rational dividing line. was [lot seeking in any way .to reopen
This, of course, does not raise any ques­ settled cases. Therefore, what we have
tions relating ,to the principle of the Bill. to do is to compare in our minds the
One is simply examining what is essen­ unsettled cases with the settled cases, and
tially a COdIll11'ttee point about which see whether in fact this Amendment
cases should fall 'llI1der one system of would produce a fairer result than under
compensation and whieh cases should .fall the Bill.
under the other.
The hon. and learned Member for
J must warn the Committee, if, indeed, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) raised quite
it needs any warning, that, wherever one reasonably the effect on local authorities.
draws the line, there will almost cerrninly Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have
be some 'hard cases. It is probably com­ already mentioned that. That is another
mon ground between us that hard cases aspect to which we must have regard.
can make bad law. We drafted the Bill It is quite true that, in the normal
as it is because we felt that, as it stands, development, the price paid for the land
it would be explicable ·to everybody, even is but a small part of the total final cost
if not acceptable to everybody, as to to the local authority, especially in hous­
why some cases came on -to the new 109 cases and cases for acquisition for
basis whereas others were on the old. It housing purposes, which cover a large
will be common ground between us--I propOrLion of ,t'he total cases of compul­
But quite clearly,
am quite sure that my hon. Friends will sory acquisition.
accept it~that, i1 we do consider possible Parliament would not lightly introduce
alterations, as the Amendment asks us a Measure that 'was going Ita cause SOffi'e
to do, we must take care that we do not private individual. who had been bargain­
produce a situa tion in which it becomes ing to make a purchase, pay a much
17
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Planning Bill
78
[MR. BROOKE.]
period. Indeed, it would re-<Jpen cases
higher price than he thought he would w,here notice to treat was served between
have to pay at the time when he started 1947 and 1952, a period where, thanks to
the 1947 Act, the ttenn "market value"
the proceedings.
We must ·not treat ·Iocal aut,horities as has nO certain meaning. I rhink ·it might
wholly different from private individuals. have been tthrut which my hon. Friend the
Member for North Angus and Meams
We must take into account their (Sir C. Thormon-Kernsley) has had in
approach to the matter also, and see that mind, in pa"t at least, in connection with
we would not, by making such a change another Amendmem he has later on the
as this, create a situation which would Paper in relMion to Clause 12, Which
be intolerable from their point of view. itself .has some bearing on the issue we
All these matters have to be taken into 3Jl'e now discussing.
account upon that basis. I was grateful
I want to be perfectly frank with the
to my hon. Friend the Mem ber for
erosby fMr. Page) when he said he Committee. The Government's sole de­
appreciated it would not be possible for sire is to try and arrive at as rational a
the Government to weigh all the con­ dividing line as possible. We believe "hat
siderations and come to '8, conclusion on we have the best here. My hon. Friend
the Amendment, which has been On the has said that notice to treat is not what
stands out in the individual mind, but
Order Paper for less than a week.
the time when the compensation is finally
nere have been references to the arrived at which is taken as a crucial
quO;sUion of wilthdrawal of notice to treat. date. I have pointed out why the Govern­
As I lNIderstand it. a notice to treat can ment drafted the Bill as they did, but
be -withdrawn by rhe local au.thority six I have not got a closed mind on the sub­
weeks after the notice to claim, but it ject. I am not yet convinced, let me say
can be withdrawn later than that by candidly, that the Bill should be amended
agreement between the par,ties. Under in the sense that is indicated in this
the rresent law, a notice ,to ,treat can be Amendment. But I am perfeotly ready
witMrawn by agreement at any time and, to examine it. It seems essentially the
indeed, can be served again up to three kind of issue w.hich ought to be con­
year; from the date of nhe confinuation sidered in Committee and then examined
of the original compulsory fu"rher order. further by the Government between this
.So we shall take into a""ount all these and the Report stage.
facts as well.
I hope that my hon. Friends will feel
Another complication is that in some
of tthese instances the Amendment would that in the time available to me, I have
'be likely to lead to the individual being been devoting such abilities as I have to
.disarpointed and receiving a lower com­ the issue raised in this Amendment. 1
penation than he would otherwise have see that there is a problem here. I am
dom. My Department have had a sure that both sides of the Committee
number of cases brought to our notice appreciate Ihat there are a number of
since the pUblication of the Bill. It is considerations which need to be taken
not a great number. As a matter of into account, and the definite undertaking
f.aot we Iha ve already come across one that 1 will give will be to go into every­
of those where, if this Amendment were thing that has be,n said on both sides
writ:en into ,the Bill, the individual would of the Committee between now and the
I'eCcive lower compensation because the Report stage, when perhaps We can dis­
Bill basil of compensation would suit 'him , cuss the matter further.
less well than the old one.
Mr, Mitchison: I am glad to hear the
\\le also have to bear in mind that the Minister's view that the basis in the Bill
Amendment W<Juld. of course, take us far on this matter is the right one. I must
bad beyond the current year. It is only apologise to him for having missed the
sine cases W1here notice to 1rea1 was first sentence or two-doubtless invalu­
served during I'his year th"t there has able-of what he said, but I had the effect
been, thanks to my hon. and gallant of it given to me.
FritOd the Member for Gloucestershire.
Mr, Brooke: If I may interrupt the
South (Mr. Oortield) and others, a good
hon.
and learned Member, what I said
.deal of talk ah<H1t thil old question. This
would go back over the whole ten year in those first sentences was that the
Tow~"~nd Coun'try
79
'2 DECEMBER 1958
Government. in drafting the Bill. thought
tha,t thIS was the best line which could
be sustained on grounds of principle and
reason. but that we were perfectly pre.
pared to examme. between now and the
Report stage. whether or not there was a
beller line.
Mr. Mitcmson: I am most grateful to
The report
gIven to me was qUIte correct. I want to
put one point to him. and to put it quite
sho"tly. The proposal is that matters
should be adjusted as on some otber date
than the date of the notice to treat. The
hon. Member who moved the Amendment knows perfectly well that a notice
to treat corresponds closely with the issue
of a writ in ordinary proceedings. and
that what is decided on the final decision
is the rights as they stood at the moment
of 'tile, nOlice to treat. Accordingly. if
those nghts are changed during the course
of "rhe proceedings-at some point between the notice 10 treat and the final
decision-the final decision becomes unIt is not the decision which is
real.
contemplated in all this legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was.
therefore. perfectly right in saying that
if this Amendment were accepted. ii
would he retrospective legislation. just
as it would be retrospective to change the
law about some other maller and then
apply that change to proceedings which
were before some court or other tribunal.
There really is no doubt ahout it. There
is one particular point which has not been
mentioned. but which I think illustrates
the -unreality of what is proposed in the
Amendment. In the course of these proceedings" sealed tender may be delivered
by the local authority as to what they
think is a fair price and. of course. that
sealed tender has its effect on the award
of costs, If this Amendment were carried.
the sealed tender might have been delivered on one basis and the decision
arrived at on another.
If the local
authority had known what was going to
happen there might have been a different
sum tendered in that way.
~e right hon. Ge,!tleman.
Mr. Cole: 1 am sorry to interrupt the
hon, Gentleman. but I "m following him
with great care, Is he implying that the
amount paid under the 1947 or 1954 Act
might depend upon the amount of .money
allowed for the tender and not paid· in
compensation?
27118
Planning Bill
,80
Mr. Mitcmson : I am sorry if I did not
make myself clear to the hon. Gentleman.
The s"aled tender is really a maller of
costs. If the local authority has offered
by sealed tender something which is up to
the amount of the final decision. then the
costs will go accordingly. and if it has not
they will not. That is the point of the
sealed tender. The essential point is that
we must not have retrospective legislation
in a case of this sort. If the question
that has to be decided is that of the rights
of the parties at the time when the notice
to treat was served. then we must not alter
those rights between the notice to tender
and the final decision. There can be no
doubt about that. It is a perfectly simple
maller. and there cannot be any doubt. at
any ,rate to those curious people called
lawyers. that to "Iter the law in the course
of litigation and then apply it to that
litigation is anything but retrospective
legislation, The reason is that what is
being decided in the case of an action
is righ ts "t the time of the issue of the
writ. and is being decided in these cases
is rights at the time of the notice to treat.
I hope rhat the right hon, Gentleman
will stand by the Bill on this point.
He gave Iillle indication of an intention
to do otherwise. but since he is to reconsider the maller let me assure him that
on this point he has our full support
from this side of the Committee. Indeed.
we regard this Amendment as a very
one-sided Amendment indeed. In the
majority of these cases. as appears from
the figures in the Financial Memorandum
to the Bill. the effect of this alteration
would be in favour of the owner or landlord. as the case might be, It would
be an unfair advantage for the reason I
have given. and it would be unfair. of
course. taking the balance-there would
be exceptional cases-to the acquiring
authority. On a point of this sort we
all want to be fair as between the two
sides. There is a clear standard of fairness. and we do not want what is in
effect restrospective legislation in favour
of one side.
Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right
hon. Friend for the undertaking which
he has given, The only two objections
raised by the hon. and learned Member
for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)-the sealed
tender and costs. and the notice to treat
as a writ-are the sort of things which
might be put right in the provisos which
B
,
81
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. PAGE.]
I mentioned in moving this Amendment.
I do not accept his theory that the notice
to treat is a writ. I should have thought
that the stage at which proceedings start
is far later than that when the owner
r~uses vhe distriot valuer's statement of a
figure and brings it before the Land
Tribunal. I take heart from the words
which my right hon. Friend used when
he said that he was prepared to examine
this matter to see if there is a fairer
'and more ,rational line ""hich is e"plicabJe
to everybody. I think the line we have
drawn in this Amendment is the line
which would be explicable to everybodr.
-individuals and local authorities as wel .
I am quite sure that the majority of local
authorities want to play the game and
provide the owner with his fair market
value by way of compensation. In the
circumstances, I beg to ask-12.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitcbison : Before the hon. Gentleman seeks permission to withdraw-The Chairman: I must point out that
if there is objection to the hon. Member
withdrawing ,the Amendment, it cannot
be withdrawn.
Mr. Mitchison : With respeot, the hon.
Member has not yet asked leave to withdraw. I ,would first ask him this question:
As a fair-minded person I am sure he will
agree that what is decided finally are the
rights at the time of the notice ,to treat.
Planning Bill
82
for getting the Bill on to the Statute Book.
I beg to ask leave to withraw thisAmendment.
Mr. Willis : I am sorry to say something
here, but I say it because of t~e speech
of the Minister. I listened with Interest to
him when he said that he would do this,
look at that and decide whether or not
this or that was right or wrong. Where
does Scotland come in on this Bill? ThiS
Bill affects Scotland. We do not know
whether the Secretary of State for Scotland
intends to do anything about it. We have
heard no arguments deployed in this
respect. This is most unsatisfactory. I
know that the Secretary of State twits me
for the number of times that I say thIS,
but certainly it is justified on thiS
occasion.
I am surprised that the Joint UnderSecretary of State for Scotla~d should. sit
there tamely and listen, without. trymg
to exert his rights and do somethmg on
behalf of Scotland. We in Scotland do
not want to be dragged along like t)lis.
These are highly legal and techmcal
matters and yet we have no lawyer here.
We sho'uld have tb,e Solicitor-General ~or
Scotland in the Committee to ask him
whether the procedure un~er. discussion
applies in Scotland. ThIS IS treating
Scottish Members shamefully.
I do not agree with the principle of t~e
Amendment. I have heard of no one m
Scotland 'who wants this Amendment. No
representations have been I!'ade to me,
nor, I think, to other ScottIsh Members
desiring this Amendment. The only representations quoted durmg the dISCUSSIons
were those from the Country Landowners' Association. Not even the Scottish Country Landowners' Association
has demanded this Amendment. I suppose they do not know about it, or they,
too would be clamouring for their pound
Mr. Artbur Probert: Here is the rare of flesh out of the Exchequer, or the rateoccasion where I must disagree with my payers' pockets. I discovered during the
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Second Reading that the Secretary. of
Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that owing to State had received no representatlOn
the indecision of the Minister over this about the Bill. All he was able to tell
point he will cause considerable delay in us was that he had had conversations
settling cases which are now in some with one or two people. He had received
doubt between various parties. The very no representation from any local authority
fact that he has said that he will consider or public body demanding the BIll or the
this from now to an uncertain date will Amendment. Why should we have to
cause confusion in cases which are due for accept an Amendment whi7h in England
decision.
is thought to ,be a good thing, but not m
Scotland?
Mr. Page: Surely that is a good reason
Mr, C, W, Gibson: No, we do not.
for withdrawing opposition to the Bill and
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is quite
correct in saying that compensation is
agreed as at that date. There is no reason
why that should not continue under our
Amendment. We are not dealing with the
date at which compensation should be
assessed, but with those who come within
purview of the Bill.
83
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
Mr. Willis: I am certain that every
pressure will be exerted on the Minister
to accept this Amendment. Whenever it
84
be very glad ,to try to answer any questions put to me on this Bill. The
Solicitor-General is occupied in another
comes to questions of the vested interest
Committee~-
of landowners there is never any dubiety
where the other side of the Committee
stand. But have we got to acco!!t this.
Or can we put down an Amendment on
Report to exclude Scotland from the
application of the Amendment? We will
have a good try. I object most strongly
that the English Minister should be
speaking for us on a Bill which specifically concerns Scotland.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member seems
to suggest that Scotland is being overlooked. But I have not been advising
the Committee to accept this Amendment. I have been assuming that it will
be withdrawn, and then we shall proceed to an Amendment of even greater
interest to Scotland. I have received no
Scottish representations from this side of
the Committee. I only heard my hon.
Friend the Member for North Angus and
Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)
speaking in support of this Amendment,
and what ,he would wish me to do would
be to bring to the notice of the Secretary
of State what has been said by both
Seottish Members. That I undertake to
do.
Mr. Willis: My complaint is not that
Scotland has been overlooked but that
it has been not properly regarded. We
have been dragged into this. I wish we
had been overlooked in respect of this
Bill, and had a Bill of our own. The
hon. Member for North Angus and
Mearns speaks on this matter from a
professional point of view. He admitted
during Second Reading that most of his
evidence came from England. Therefore, I dismiss a lot of his remarks as
part of the general English argument. I
hope the hon. Gentleman is at least going
to answer one thing-what is happening
about this Amendment insofar as Seotland is concerned. and whether all the
legal technicalities regarding notice to
[reat and their withdrawal are the same
in Scotland as in England. Has he
received representations from Scotland?
If not, does he think that he ought to
impose this extra burden upon local
authorities?
The Joint Under-Secmary of State for
Scotland (Mr. NiaU Macpherson) : I shall
Planning Bill
Mr. Ro.. : We would also like to be
there.
Mr. Macpherson : I am certain that the
Committee will appreciate that it is not
appropriate for the Minister of Housing
and Local Government and myself to
sing a duet, and ·vhat one or other must
take these Amendments. It will be a
matter for the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and myself to decide who
will deal with any partieular Amendment. Amendments dealing with English
procedure will be answered either by the
Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendments that relate to Scotland will
be dealt with by the Solicitor-General
or myself. I give the undertaking that
where there is a matter in which there
is a significant dillerence in the application of the Bill to Seotland compared
with England we shall speak on that
point. In this pamicular case there is no
significant dillerence as to procedure. We
have no Lands Tribunal in Scotland. It
goes instead to an arbiter.
Mr. Willis :
procedures.
There
are
dillerent
Mr. Macpherson : There is a difference
in procedure, but it is not material to
this Amendment.
Mr. Willis: Surely [he wording of the
Amendment includes the Lands Tribunal?
We are now told that there is no such
thing in Scotland, This is a shocking
manner in which to treat Scottish
Members.
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member
should nM overstate his case. This is not
an Amendment pill down by the Government. It was put down by my hon.
Fniends behind me.
Mr. Mitchison: llhe hon. Gentleman
must surely be aware that t1he names on
the Amendment include a Scottish Member, and wat Member is referring to what
in Scotland is a non-eJ<istenl body. He
has put down no corresponding Amendment to apply the prowsion to Scotland.
Mr. Macpherson: The bono and
learned Gentleman ",hen moving his own
Amendments o~ten goes so far as to say
85
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MACPHERSON.]
that he does not claim that the AmenJment as drafted .is necessarily pedect. 1
'have no doubt ,~hat myhon. Friend tbe
Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) would
say tlhe same.
Mr. Prober!: There is sign'ificance ·in
what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
that 'he is going ,to consider this Amendment.
Planning Bill
86
Mr. Macpherson : Roughly, considering
the number of outstanding applications.
they might be only one-quarter proportionately to those in England. It is pro.
portionately a smaller problem in Scotlan.d, and for that reason, no doubt, we
have not received as many representations.
We have been on this point before-Mr. Willis: Have you received any?
Mr. Ross: How many have we had?
Mr. Macpherson: One has to decide
what is meant by receiving representations in this matter. If hon. Gentlemen
mean official letters received by my right
·hon. Friend in his capacity as Secretary
of State for Scotland, that is one thing.
If what is lJ1eant is representations from
organised bodies, that is another thing.
If by representations we mean the number of times that individual Members on
this side of the Committee have
been asked, including my hon. Friend
.the Member for Nor,h Angus and
Mearns (Sir C. Thorn!ton-Kemsley),
who Js so knowledgeable and is
frequently approached in these mat·ters:
if rwe consider what representations
we Ulave received as Members of
Parliament, while it would not be possible to count them, the number would
be considerable. So 1 ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press this point about
t·he number of representations on any
given Amendment. It is easy to see the
kind of Amendment or part of the Bill
which is ·Iikely to give rise to representations, and one is continually discussing
such matters whether in one's eonstitu..
ency or with officials.
Mr. Macpherson: OJrrespondence on
fhis maHer--
1 hope 1 have dealt with the poin18
raised by the hon. Gentleman--
12.30p.m.
Mr. Macpherson: 1 was coming :0
~hat. My ~ight hon. Friend Irnows exactly
the procedures ,~hat 'have ,to be follawed.
As my right hon. Friend is extremely
courteous, the Committee will be aware
that ",hen he is considering this matter
-and 1 am sure he meant .to convey that
-he will be working in consultation with
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Scotland. The Secretary uf
State is represented here. and 1 also shall
have oppomunities of drawing to lhe
alJtention of my right .hon. Friend the
Secretary of State anynhing that may be
said in the course of' ·the Committe~
stage.
1 have dealt with 'the only material
point that has arisen. Perhaps 1 may add
that 1 think the scope of this problem
to Scot.land is proportionately a good
deal lessuhan it is in England, and ·this
may account for mhe fact that we have
had ,propor.tionateJy fewer representations.
Mr. Willis: We have had none at all.
Mr. Ross: How many letters?
Mr. Macpberson: 1 am n~ in a position to say how many, nor did my right
hon. Fr.iend say how many had been
received from England, but 1 do not
,uhink that is relevant.
Mr. Willis: Would ,the hon. Gentleman allaw me l<l interrupt? He must not
get away with this.
The Chainnan : Onler.
Mr. Macpherson: I. am telling the
Committee that the problem is proportionately less,
Mr. Willis: Haw many representations?
Mr. Willis: The .hon. Gentleman has
not answered them. all.
Mr. Macpherson: 1 am sure that the
hon. Gentleman would not wish. when
he ,thinks over that ma~ter of principle,
that there should be a difference as between Scotland and England. My right
hon. Friend has said that he will consider
this matter to see where to draw the line
iil principle, and 1 am certain that for
Scotland the right place in principle will
be the same as tor England.
Mr. Page: Once again 1 beg leave. to
ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
87
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
The Chainnan: It is not 10 order for
the hon. Member to do so. It has been
refused, and I must, therefore, put the
Question.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2,
line 13, to leave out ,subsection (3).
The Chairman: I would point out here
that the last Amendment on today's
Order Paper would stand or fall wi,th ,this
one, namely, in Clause 45, page 57, line
12, ,leave out subsection (3) and insert:
0) This Act shaH not extend to Scotland.
and the proposed new Clause Application to Scotland.
Part I of Ihis Act shall not ex.lend to Scotland.
Mr. Ross: We have seen in the last
few minutes or so in the discussion that
has ,taken place the difficulty which the
signatories to this Amendment-my hon.
Friend the Member for Glasgow. Central
(Mr. Melnnes). myself and my 'hon.
Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East
(Mr. WiIlis)~have sought ,to avoid by
putting down .the Amendment and suggesting that if this Amendment, and the
other Amendments referred rto, are
accepted we can decamp from this Committeeand leave the English to carry
on with their own very little Bill.
The problem arises-<lOd I would like
quotation marks put aroundrhis phrase.. from the wide difference of character,
outlook, and development between different
localities in the Kingdoms. The problem, of
course, becomes a good deal more acute when
a separate national sentiment is involved. It
becomes still more acute where a separate
language is involved, in' a country which
It belargely speaks a separate language.
comes most acute of all-to my mind . . ,
where there is a separate law involved, as in
Scolland."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th Novem-
ber, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 2088 and 2089.]
I stipulated quotation marks because
if no one else recognises those words,
the Joint Under-Secretary should recognise them. They are his own. He was
urgjng upon ,us not merely the qUe8tion
of getting rid of Scottish application when
on 16th November, 1949, he raised an
Adjournment in the House which fortunately, or unfoPtunately for himself in
being able 1Nl be expansive, star,ted at
albo!>t 6.30 instead of at 10 o'clock '11
nighit on the question of Scottish devolution. Hc then drew "ttention to Ihe
differences, of how Scottish sentiment was
Planning Bill
88
being affronted and insulted by failure
10 make legislative provision for proper
contact for Scottish people and for control of Scottish legislation by Scottish
people.
The 'hon. Gentleman weO'! on to urge
the only way he could keep in
order was by asking for an inquirythM there should be full legislative
devolution for Scotland. Would he like
It<> hear any more of thM brilliant speech?
~and
Mr. Willis: Read it ruH out.
Mr. Ross: At Ihrut .ime he was
speaking as a National Liberal.
Mr. Gibson : W-hat is thaA?
Mr. Ross: We do not know. I want
know where Ithe liberalism he claimed
in th"se days has disappeared. A few
minutes ago the hon. Gentleman stood
there as an apostle of uniformity and said
that everything in Scotland must be the
same as in England. We deny that, and
the history of Sc'>,tish law denies it.
'I"
If there is any Dundam,,"tal aspect of
Soottish law, irt is the law rel.ling to land,
the tenure of land, the title of land, its
succession, its sale and ever}"thing else.
T,he ,hon. Gentleman knows, if no one
else. that we have had our separate
Staru'les for land right from It,he ,time of
the Aot of Union, and he will find a
century of ,them on the Statute Book in
lhe Lands Clauses Ants from 1854 10
1954. We ev,," had a special planning
Act in 1947 as against the English
planning Am.
Why does the hon.
Gentleman th,," come along and say we
must have uniformity, that the principles
are Ivhe same, ~hat every,thing is the
same?
Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting,
what I said was thM where the principles
are the same it is reasonable to have them
applied equally in Scotland as in
England.
Mr. Ross : Even ,though I granted that
ill might be desirable, it does not mean
.hat we should be in the same Aot of
P,arliament, that we should lose what
right we have, and the righrt for whioh
the hon. Gentleman pleaded, when he
was a back bencher, namely, ~hat we
Should have separMe legislation for Scotland, mhl>! SOO1:lish Members of Parliament generally-not just four of us-
89
Towrt and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. Ross.]
should have an o<X:asional say as to
whether an Amendmoot thalt has been
applied in relation to England and WThles
should also be accepted for Sootland
wi,hout discussing properly its merits.
When we do intervene we rightly get the
backs up of hon. Gel1Jtlemen opposite.
which is psychologically understandable.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should appreoiMe tihat this will happen throughout the
Bill. that ~his Bill is \Wo Aots of Parliament with a p"tchwork of applioation
right -through it applying to Scotland. We
have as much right as any hon. Member
to hear the Joint Under-Secretary ",t all
times or to hear the Solicitor~General for
Somland. We cannot ask to hear tihe
Secretary of State because he is not a
member of the Oommittee.
Mr. James Melnnes :He saw to that
all right.
Mr. Ross: Of course, he saw to that.
There are actually four Bills being considered, one in the Scottish Standing
Committee, but if we look for the name
of the Secretary of State on any of those
four Committees we shall not find it.
The right hon. Gentleman is the legislative invisible man as regards Scotland.
He does not appear on Committees, but
that is by the way.
.
We are told by the hon. Gentleman that
where the principles are the same there
is no need for separate legislation. Has
the Scottish Office fallen under the
National Liberals?
Remember. the
Secretary of State for Scotland is a
National Liberal also. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite remember 18th December,
1955, when there had been just the same
agitation in England and Wales in relation to a required change for compensation in the case of slum clearance? Hon.
Members gained their point at that time.
The power of the landlords was such that
the Minister of Housing in those days
gave way. He is a Minister who will
give way a lot probably in the new sphere
in which he is now active-he is now
Minister of Defence.
The Minister of Housing at that time
gave way and made a statement in the
House on new compensation proposals
for slum clearance to mitigate acute hardship. There were exactly the same kind
of pleas we are getting here today. It
was said that Scotland must have
uniformity. How the Tory landlords
Planning Bill
90
like uniformity of legislation of that kind
when it is on the increase. But we had
a different Secretary of State for Scotland
at that time.
Having been invited to introduce Parliamentary measures by the hon. Gen tleman the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun
(Sir J. Hutchison), the then Secretary of
State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn
(Mr. J. Stuart), intervened and said:
"The position in Scotland is somewhat
different both as regards the scale of the
problem and the basis of compensation under
the existing law."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th
Deeember. 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1010.]
This was not from a backbencher, and
it was our whole case admitted by the
then Secretary of State for Scotland, one
who insisted on Scottish rights. Indeed,
when we were dealing with the parallel
Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee the
right hon. Gentleman said that if we
made our caSe he would change the Bill
and would not have uniformity.
Does the hon. Gentleman remember
what happened to the Food and Drugs
Bill, which started out the same, but in
which one vital change was made in
relation to the inspection of hotels, and
which is applicable in Scotland today but
not in England? That was because we
convinced the Secretary of State in the
Standing Committee that things should be
different in Scotland.
I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite
to remember that this has happened
throughout the years. They will probably be interested in what happened in
the House last week, when a most striking
speech was made by the hon. Member
for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). He said
this:
.. [ woutd recommend to my right hon.
Friend the Home Secretary a very close study
of the Scottish system of law. It appears to
me that when we have these debates in the
House and we have the one balanced againsl
the other the Scottish system of law always
comes out very much to advantage."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1958 ; Vot.
596. c. 475.]
That of course springs from the fact that
it is different people dealing with different
circumstances, but probably the same
problem and arriving at a different con·
clusion, a conclusion related to the facts
as we see them in Scotland. It very often
turns out that the same considerations
would have been well worthy of con·
sideration in relation to England and
91
Planning Bill
2 DECEMBER 1958
92
Wales. We have seen that over and over issue. The Unionists declared nine years ago
again in debates where there has been that they would have separate measures for
whenever circumstances required. The
more or less a re-discussion in relation to Seotland
same attitude was adopted without any equivocertain matters in the House over past cation by such an impartial body as the Royal
years.
Commission on Scottish Affairs. And the prinTown and Country
12.45 p.m.
What we object to is the contention
that we must have uniformity. There is
no reason why we should have uniformity.
I am not dealing with the question of the
need for this Clause, or indeed for this
Bill, in application to Scotland. That will
be covered by my hon. Friend the Mem.
ber for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes).
Mr. Page: May I ask if the hart.
Member is speaking to the Amendment at
all?
Mr. Ross : I would ask the hon. Mem.
ber for Crosby (Mr. Page) if he has read
the Amendment.
The Chairman: Order. If the hon.
Member was not speaking to the Amend·
ment I would have called him to order.
Mr. Ra.. : Thank you, Sir Roliert. For
the benefit of the hon. Member for
Crosby I would remind him that we are
speaking to more than one Amendment.
IT lihe ·hon. MOOlber has not read ,the
Amendment I should tell him that it
would wipe out the whole basis of building up these new additional qualifications
and the new calculation of value in Scat.
land and leave it purely as a matter for
England and Wales. Let the hon. Mem.
ber see the implications of the Amend.
ment before he starts criticising the Chair.
It is very wrong of him to intervene with
a point of order like that.
We object to the principle of uni.
formity. We are appalled that the Conservative Party should now come along
as the apostles of that principle and insist
on it. They are the people who claimed
not long ago, and produced leaflets in
Scotland about it, that where special provisions were required for Scotland and
to safeguard Scottish legislative rights
they would insist on separate legislation
for Scotland. No wonder that in the
Edinburgh Evening News of 12th Novem.
'ber there was a leading article· which
said:
.. .. ' . there was much force in the complaints
-of Labour Members in the House of Commons
yesterday, and one may hope that the objeetions will have their effect on future legisla~
tion.
This is neither a trivial nor a party
ciple must be followed rigorously if Scotland's
independent legal system is not to become in
time a mere appendage of the English modeL"
Would the Joint Under-Secretary like
me to remind him of exactly what the
Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs
had to say about this? He should be
very interested because it may well be
that one of the results of the debate which
he initiated in the House demanding an
inquiry was that the Royal Commission
on Scottish Affairs was set up by his
Government as the solution of all Scat·
land's difficulties. It was to show how
Conservatives were concerned about the
problem. Wherever there was even the
probability or the possibility of a
Scottish applic;;tion whioh was difficult or
lengthy there should be separate Scottish
legislation. That was one of the findings
of the Royal Commission, and that finding was accepted at the time by the Conservative Government.
Let the hon. Gentleman examine this
Let him examine Clause after
Clause and let him deny if he can the
complexity of the subject. Even" humble
Henry" agreed about the complexity of
the subject last week. He said he was a
simple man and could not understand
or explain it. Added to that complexity.
we have Scottish applications which in
many cases run to more than one page
in the Bill, making it even more complex
and less understandable. One provision
is to leave out paragraph (d) but when
we look for it we find there is no paragraph (d). It may be paragraph (b),
but I shall come to that when I put down
an Amendment dealing with the matter.
I hope that will not be necessary. It
will not be necessary if the Government
accept this Amendment and the advice
which comes from all over Scotland.
It came from the learned professor
Bill.
who wrote a fine article in the Scotsman,
Professor Smith. I shall not weary the
Committee by reading that, but the fact
is that this is an appalling business. It
is something which is resented by Scottish people. No Minister should resent
the expression of Scottish sentiment. That
again is a quotation from a speech made
by the hon, Gentleman in J949. It was a
93
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. Ross.]
very fine speech. but Scotland is more
concerned now with the kind of speech
he will make on this Amendment. Is
he to live up to all his past pledges to
the people of Scotland, to Dumfries in
particular. that the rights of Scotland we
have held should be defended? Let us
be honest; he himself defended them
before he assumed the task of looking
after the interests of Scottish education
as a Joint Under-Secretary. Are they fa
be let down now that he is thrown by
a despairing Secretary of State for Scat·
land from the job of looking after educa·
tion, as there is nothing much to be done
for education in Scotland. to the job of
town and country planning?
This is not just a matter of the prin.
ciple of separate legislation on a subject
on which Scotland has every reason to
have separate legislation. but it is in
relation to a Bill which is unwanted in
Scotland. We have had no adequate
justification for the Bill applying to Scotland at all. Our plea is that this Amend·
ment should be accepted because we
should not have Scotland legislated for
in this really appalling Bill. This is an
insult to Scotland if ever there was one.
There is no Scottish lawyer who can
understand what is to happen to Scotland
under it. An hon. Member who claims
to be a Scottish Member signed his name
to the last Amendment we discussed, but
it makes complete nonsense in relation
to Scotland.
The institutions are
different; the terminology is different and
the practice is different.
Mr. Mitchison: The local authorities
are different.
Mr. Ross: The looal authorities are
entirely different. This is a disgraceful
way of proceeding. I hope ilhe Joint
Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment. We saw how hastily the Government rose in order to bend Ita the will of
the landlord and to agr.ee to consider
the last Amendment. If we are concerned
in Scotland aibout this questioTh it ,is
because of the successive blows we have
had from this Government. In two years
they have done more damage to the caillle
of Scottish independooce than was done
in ·the previous ,twelve years. We 'Used
to . have a Scottish G rand Committee. but
now we have only a Scottish Standing
Committee. A rump remains.
Planning Bill
94
The Chairman: The hon. Member is
now getting a little wide of the Amend·
ment. He llIlust confine himseM' to the
application of this Bill to Scotland.
Mr. Ross: I ,think 'I was straying a
little far, Sir Robert. 'but. if so, it was
because I feel so strongly about the
matter. 'We do not ask for any special
privileges as Scottish Members: we ask
mainly for the maintena:nce·of our rights.
We ask the Government to do \\1hat they
ought to do before ,they present any
legislation-just,ify the need for it and,
having justified the need. to produce a
separate Scottish Bill. I hope the GOIV·
emment Front Bench will not insist in
dragging Scotland along as they are doing
in this almost incomprehensible way.
which denies us the 'light of argument
",nd discussion and the power of ,persua·
sion. It is going ,to be very difficult for
three humble Scots on this side of the
Commi,ttee to concvince the solid phalanx
of English hon. Members-Mr. Gibson: Do not 1lll111P us all
together.
Mr. Ross : -<lnthe other side of the
Commi1Jtee. It would ,be far better, and
in the interests of good governmoot, in
the ,interests of r""peet for Scotland and
respect fO'f the rights of Scotland, if this
Amendment were ,accopted and the Government announced that if they found it
necessary on consideJ1ation Ito introduce
a Scottish Measure Mall they would ma:ke
it a separate Scottish Bill to ,be dealt ,with
in the Scottish Standing Commilitee.
Mr. Mclnnes: I wish to support my
hon. Friend the Member .for Kilmarnock
(Mr. Ross) in his plea for the exclusion
of Scotland from the application of this
Bill. I think every hon. Member in the
Commi1Jtee will concede immediately ~h&t
this is a very complioa,ted piece of legislation. <It is complicated in its essential
subject matter. 'brut it is£urther complicated 'by the adaptation of an 'English
Measure to meet Scottish conditions. It
becomes almost incomprehensible. We
have 'before us this moming a Bill con·
taining 45 Clauses and eight Schedules.
No fewer than 30 Clauses and five
Schedules oontain separate applioallions in
subsections or paragraphs dealmg with
the situation in Seoll1a.nd.
95
Town and Country
2 DECEMBER 1958
As my :hon. Friend said, many of those
references extend ro more than a full page
of pr.jnt.
Is there any wonder tha:t
Scotti1ih local authorities and ,~he legal
fraternity ;n Scotland are demonstrating
9UCh hostility towards this Bill? One can
weU understand the difficulty of local
authority officials and legal luminaries in
trying ,to appreciate the mU implicatiol}S
of a Measure of ~his kind. .J suggest to
lIbe Joint Under-Secretary .that .this is an
absolutely fantastic way of ~egislating. It
displays 'a complete disregard of and COlltempt for the .recommendations of the
Royal Commission on Scolti1ih Affairs,
whioh this Government 'appointed in 1953
and ,..mich "'poTted in 1954.
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS
Grimston, Sir R. (Chairman)
Balniel, Lord
Bevins, Mr.
Biggs-Davison, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.
Brooke, Mr.
Butler, Mrs.
Cole, Mr.
Corfield, Mr.
du Cann, Mr.
EJliolt, Mr.
Errington, Sir E.
Fitch, Mr.
Gibson, Mr.
GUTden, Mr.
Harrison, Colonel
kvine, Mr. A. J.
Johnson, Dr.
Johnson, Mr. E.
Planning Bill
96
The Royal CommisSion indicated quite
clearly that wherever a sta:tute might lead
to difficulties of interpretation if applied
to ~he ""hole of ,the United Kingdom,
sepa.-ate Measures sbould be enacted for
Scotland and for England and Wales.
The Government have thou/lbt lH to throw
overboard ~he recommendations of ·the
Royal Commission whioh ,theytheJl1selves
appointed. Indeed, during the past two
years----'---
It being One o'clock. The CHAtRMAN
adjourned the Committee, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Committee adjourned until Thursday,
4th December, at half-past Ten o'clock.
AlTENDED THE COMMIlTEE:
MacColl, Mr.
McInnes, Mr.
Macpherson, Mr. N.
tMahon, Mr.
Maitland, Mr.
Mitchison, Mr.
Nicolson, Mr. N.
Page, Mr.
Powell, Mr.
Price, Mr. D.
Pmbert, Mr.
Ramsden, Mr.
Ross, Mr.
Skeffington, Mr.
Sparks, Mr.
Temple, Mr.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir C.
Wilkins, Mr.
Willis, Mr.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
STANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
THURSDAY,
4th
DECEMBER,
1958
Third Sitting
CONTENTS
under consideration when the Committee
adjourned till Tuesday, next, 9th December, 1958, at
half-past Ten o'clock.
CLAUSE I,
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
NINEPENCB NET
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of
Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are
requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied, but any corrections which Members
desire in the bound volumes should be marked in this Report.
The copy of the Report containing such corrections must be
returned to the Editor's room, House of Commons,
not later than
Tuesday, 9th December. 1958
STRICT ADHERENCE TO TInS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY
FACILITATE TIIE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF
THE BOUND VOLUMFS OF PROCEEDINGS
IN STANDING COMMITTEES.
PRINI'ED AND PUBLISHED BV HER MAJESl V'S STATIONERY OFFICE
To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway. LONDON, w.c.2
13a Castle Street. EDINBURGH, 2
39 King Street, MANCHfSnR, 2
2 Edmund Street, BIRMINGHAM, 3
423 Oxford Street, LONDON, w J
109 St. Mary Street, CARDIfF
Tower Lane, BRISTOL, 1
80 Chichester Street, BELFASJ
or from any Bookseller
PRINTED IN ORBAT BlllTAIN
91
Town and CounJry
4 DECEMBER 1958
TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING BILL
SfANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday, 4th December, 1958
[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
Clause 1.-(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION.)
Amendmem proposed [2nd December],
In page 2. line 13. leave out subsection (3).
-[Mr. Ross.]
Question again proposed.
10.32 a.m.
The Chairman: I should remind the
Committee that with this Amendment we
are discussing those in Clause 45. page
57. line 5. leave out from beginning to
.. this" in line 9. and in page 57. line 12.
leave out subsection (3) and insert:
.. (3) This Act shall not extend to Scotland."
and the new Clause [Application to
Scotland]:
.. Part I of this Act shall not extend to
Scotland."
Mr. James Melon.s: When the Com­
mittee adjourned on Tuesday. I was point­
ing out that I regarded this as a fantastic
way of legislating for Scottish affairs. I
said that it displayed a complete dis­
regard and contempt for the recommenda­
tionsof the Royal Commission on
Scottish Affairs. which examined the
whole set-up in Scotland and which
recommended that whenever legislation
might lead to difficulties of interpretation
if applied to the United Kingdom as a
whole. there should be separate Measures
for Scotland and for England and Wales.
The inclusion of Scotland in the Bill
has aroused much hostility in the Scottish
Press and has resulted in many letters
being sent to the Lord Advocate. I have
received protests from Glasgow Corpora­
tion and from the Scottish National
Housing and Town Planning Association.
Those letters clearly demonstrate the
confusion and inconvenience caused by
the habit. which has recently grown up in
Parliament. of spatchcocking Scottish
application into English Bills.
During the last two years. we have had
no fewer than four Measures with a
27125
98
Planning Bill
United Kingdom application when the
Scottish application has been tagged on
at the end. We have had a mining sub­
sidence Bill. an agriculture Bill. the Rent
Act and now this Measure. All have
come during the tenure of the present
Secretary of State for Scotland. How
unlike his predecessor, who at least had
the courage to stand up for the principle
of separate Bills for Scotland in matters
of this kind!
Each of those Measures has been re­
lated to the law of land tenure in Scot­
land, which is violently and radically
different from that of England and Wales.
That difference has been used as one of
the main justifications for separate
Scottish legislation. As my hon. Friend
the Member for Kilmamock (Mr. Ross)
said-and I regret his absence this morn­
ing; because of serious illness at home.
he has had to return to Kilmamock-this
is not a trivial or party matter. Whether
they are
Conservatives.
Socialists.
Liberals. vegetarians, or beefea ters, Scots­
men the world over have recognised and
will always recognise the need for separ­
ate Scottish legislation. We must. there­
fore. vigorously insist on such separate
legislation if Scotland's independent legal
system is not to become a mere appendage
of the English model.
No doubt. the hon. Member for North
Angus and Meams (Sir C. Thomton­
Kemsley). whose absence this morning I
regret. would accuse me of seeking an
entirely different code of compensation
for North of the Border, but what is
wrong with a demand of that kind? We
have a separate code for Scottish educa­
tion and for subsidies relating to Scottish
education. We have a different code for
Scottish housing legislation and a different
form of housing subsidy. We also have
an entirely different system of land
tenure. We have an entirely different
legal system and. if I may modestly say
so, it is infinitely better than that South
of the Border.
Unlike the hon. Member for North
Angus and Meams. I am at least con·
sisten!. On 15th March, 1954. according
to column 11 8 of Volume 525 of HANSARD.
the hon. Member made a most convinc­
ing argument for basing compensation on
1947 values. and he said that landowners
had never expected any more. In Febru­
ary of this year, the hon. Member
A2
99
Tolt-n and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. McINNES.]
supported a private Member's Bill intro.
duced by the hon. Member for Gloucester­
shire, South (Mr. Corfield) and turned
a complete somersault in supporting a Bill
to abolish 1947 values. I can pay this
tribute to the hon. Member for
Gloucestershire, South, that his tenacity
in pursuing this matter has resulted in the
present Bill.
In Scotland we can find no justifica­
tion or demand for the fundamental
ohange which the Bill proposes. On
Second Reading we were told that the
change was necessary ,because of ithe un­
told ,hardship and injustice which resulted
from lIbe two-price system. To what
ext""t did injustice and hardship exist in
Scotland? I do not profess to know their
extent in Bngland and Wales, but I can
say categorically ~hat there was no
evidence of hardship or injustice in Scot­
land resulting from bhe present legis­
lation.
I am confirmed in that view by none
other than the Secretary of StaJle for
'Sc<>tJand hi·roself. I shall quote from the
right !hon. Gentleman's Secood Reading
sp=h. I detest doing so in his absence,
but it is not my fault, because the right
hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly
clear that 'Under no circumstances will he
attend ,the Committee stage of any Bill
affecting Sootl'and. Three Committees are
sitting this morning and he is not pre.,ent
at any Of bhem, nor does he intend to
be present.
The right ihoo. Gentleman said:
.. Although the difficulties have been less
acute in Seotland, because in general the
market value of land has diverged less from
the 1954 Act value, all that my hon. Friend
said applies, in principle, equally in Scotland
as in England and Wales."~[OFFICfAL REPORT,
13th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 630.]
l1hat was half·hearted support for his
hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Ministry of Housing and Local
Government.
T,he Parliamentary Secretary went
even further when he said:
.. The Franks Committee went out of its way,
in paragraph 278 of its Report, to comment
on all this. stating:
, ... But we cannot emphasise too strongly
the extent to which these finaneial considera­
tions affect the matters with which we have
to deal. Whatever changes in procedure are
made. dissatisfaction is, because of this,
bound to remain.'
That is one way of putting it. Most hon.
Memers have had correspondence from irate
Planning Bill
100
members of the publie--my right hon. Friend
and the Secretary of State for Scotland
certainly have-in which they have said the
same thing, but have put it rather more
violently."-[OFFICIAL REpORT. 13th November.
1958: Vel. 595, c. 585-6.]
That is very emphatic, but irresponsible.
The Secretary of State said:
"It is quite correct to say precisely what
I have been saying~that the position has not
been so acute in Scotland as in England, but
it has been there all the same. It is diffi·
cult to show how preeisely one gets evidence
of this but when I say that there is reason
to believe it, I must tell the House that I
have had remarks made to me about this
problem~that it is in the minds of local
They are worried about the
authorities.
difficulties that arise from the two-price
system. All hon. Members who are in close
touch with local authorities know that this
has been an element in their thinking. I
assure the hon. Member that I have had quite
a lot -of personal representations on this, not
from local authorities but from others. I
repeat that in the minds of some local
authorities, at any rate, this is a matter of
concern."-[OFFICIAL REpORT, J3th November,
1958; Vol. 595, c. 630.]
I repeat the challenge which was made
to the Secretary of State by my hon.
Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East
(Mr. Willis). Where is the evidence of
this volume of correspondence or protest?
Not a single Member of the Scottish
Opposition-<md there are 36 of us-has
received a single letter from a local
authority or private individual protesting
against hardships created by existing
legislation.
10.45 a.m.
What does the Secretary of State mean
when he says that local authorities are
worried? Will the Joint Under-Secretary
of State give us this morning the names
of the Scottish local authorities which
have written to the Secretary of State
expressing their concern and anxiety about
the existing legislation? What does the
Secretary of State mean when he says, " I
have had a lot of personal representa­
tions?" May I ask the Joint Under­
Secretary of State, were these personal
representations from the Scottish Land·
owner's Association or members of it,
or from his own father-in-law, or were
they from the hon. Member for Glouces­
tershire, South (Mr. Cortield)? Or were
they from the hon. Member for North
Angus and Meams (Sir C. Thornton·
Kerosley)? Who were the people who
made these representations to the Secre­
tary of State-representations which were
obviously so powerful and influential as
101
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
to ind~ce the Secretary of State to make
pr?VISIOn for Scotland in the Bill. I
think we are enutled to an answer to
these questIOns.
When I asked what would be the cost
to public authorities of returning to
market value as the price basis for COI]1­
pulsory acquisition, the Secretary of State,
as repotted at Column 631 of the
OFFICIAL REPORT said:
"Indeed, 1 would expect the average to be
lower in Scotland than ~n England for. what·
ever the reasons may be,'
He does not even know the reasons­
"the private market in land appears to be
rather less active north of the Border. In the
country districts, where there is, in any case,
little demand for land for development. the
present price level, is not likely to .undergo
much chan~e, Nor IS d,evell?ped land Ifi urban
areas acqUIred for reSidential redevelopment,
for example, in the course of slum clearance.
likely to cost much more,"
As reported in column 633, the right hon.
Gentleman said:
., The cost of land in central re-development
areas is Ilot likely to be higher, and, in any
event, deficits arising on re-development , ..
will continue to rank for . . . grant under the
planning Acts, this having been especially pre­
served for major re-development in last year's
Local Government ACt."-[OFFICIAL REPORT.
13th November, 1958; VoL 595, c. 631-3.]
If, as the Secretary of State himself
has so emphatically declared, the private
market in land is less active in Scotland
than in England and Wales; if, as he
says, there is little demand for land in
the country districts of Scotland; if, as
he says, the demand for land in urban
districts for residential development, such
as slum clearance, is not likely to cost
more; and if, as he says, the cost of land
for central area comprehensive develop­
ment is not likely to be much higher;
then I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of
State, why, in the light of these circum­
stances is Scotland included in the Bill?
Ever since 1947. Scottish local autho­
rities have acquired a considerable
volume of land for housing, industrial
and commercial purposes. I n fact, since
1947, we have acquired land for no fewer
than over 300,000 houses. The basis of
agreement which we have reached in con­
nection with land has been very near the
market value. I admit that on isolated
occasions we have had to resort to com­
pulsory acquisition, but these have been
isolated occasions. When one is able to
reach an agreement between a willing
Planning Bill
102
seller an(l a willing buyer there is no ques­
tion of hardship or injustice. I am not
conscious even that private developers
have experienced any difficulty in the
acquisition of land for their housing pro­
grammes-~nd in Scotland at pr~sent
more ~ou~mg. development by pnvate
enterpnse IS gOIng on than there has been
smce 1947.
I say most emphatically that there is
absolutely no evidence of widespread in­
justice or hardship in Scotland under the
existing town and country planning pro­
visions and that there is absolutely no
justi~c.ation of any .kind for making the
prOvISIOnS of the BIll apply to Scotland.
•
The Jomt Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson) : I agree
right away with the hon Memb r for
.
,e
Gl,asgow, Ce~tral (Mr., McInnes) on two
thIngs-first, In regrettmg very much that
the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.
Ross) IS not here and IQ the reasons for
hIS absence, and, secondly, m saymg that
the matter which we are discussing this
morning is not a trivial matter and not
a purely paTty matter. I ask for the
indulgence of English Members of the
Committee if I reply a-t some length to
the two hon. Members who have spoken,
Mr, G. R. MitchisoD : I assure the hon.
Member that this question affects us, too.
Mr. MaephersoD: I am obliged to the
hon. and learned Member. Even if it
had not been a question which affected
him, I am sure that he would have
listened with his usual courtesy and
patience,
I think it is generally agreed that if the
Committee accepts the Amendment it
might as well leave Scotland out of Part I
of the Bill and, virtually, out of the whole
Bill. Three separate questions are in­
volved here. The first is, assuming that
the principle embodied in the Clause of
fair market value is applied to England
and Wales-and I am aware that we have
not yet debated the Question, That the
Clause stand part of the Bill-should it
also be applied to Scotland? The second
is, if so, should it be applied in the same
Act of Parliament? The third question,
which is relatively minor, is, if it is
applied in the same Act of Parliament,
is the proposed method of application the
best method?
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock
objected to the principle of uniformity.
103
TOW,l
and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MACPHERSON.]
If by that he means that Scotland should
not necessarily follow England or con­
form to England in all legislation, whether
in the same Bill or in a separate Bill, I
readily agree with him. If, however, he
means that we must necessarily differ
from England in all legislation, I equally
readily disagree with him. In each case
we surely have to decide whether the
principle enshrined in the Bill applies to
the United Kingdom as a whole.
The hon. Member for Kilmamock
referred to a speech by my hon. Friend
the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson),
in which he drew attention to points in
which he and many orhers considered
Scottish law to be superior to English
law. But in town and country planning
legislation we have the same law. with
relatively minor adaptations to the
Scottish system of land tenure. For
example. there is no equivalent to a
superior of a feu in English law. Most
of the applications in 'Part I relate to
th at differenoe. The principles of town
and country planning are rhe same in both
countries, and the principles of compensa­
tion, 10 which we return in the Bill, stem
from the same Act of Parliament, the
Acqu~iti()n of Land (Assessment of
Compensation) Act, 1919-not two
separate Acts but one. Moreover, the
fund of £300 million set up to compensate
for loss ()f development value was a single
fund; there was not one fund for Scotland
and another for England. The principles
on which payments could be made from it
and can still 'be made are the same.
Mr. E. G. Willis: But enshrined in a
separate Bill.
Mr. Ma,pherson: We are dealing now
with the princi pIe.
Mr. Will,,: But it was enshrined in a
separate Bill.
Mr. Ma'l'herson: Perhaps the hon.
Member will allow me to develop my
argument. We are now dealing with
ilIhe question of principle.
Mr. Willis: But the hon. Member can­
not slip away from these points.
Mr. Marpherson: Tbe hon. Member
for Glasgow. Central said there was
nothing wrong in demanding a separate
code fe>r Scotland. I agree that there
is notlllng wrong in demanding it, but
Planning Bill
104
at present we !Jave broadly the same
code for town and country planning and
it was the party to w,hich he belongs which
started that.
Mr. Willis: In separate Billls.
Mr. McInnes: They were in separate
Bills.
The Chairman: Order. It would be
better if the Joint Under-Secretary of
State were allowed to proceed with his
speech.
Mr. Macl'herson: Hon. Members seem
to wis'h me not only to speak at the
same time as my right hon. Friemd but
also to speak about two things at once.
I ca'llnot do that. I should like to
develop my argument as best I can. The
simple question of principle is, are we
to apply the concept of fair market
value to Scotland?
Hon. Members
opposite say that there is no demand
for Scotland to be included in the BilI
and the hon. Member for Glasgow,
Central asked this morning whether we
had had representations from local
authorities about the Bill. To the best
of my knowledge, we ,have not had repre­
sentations either for or against it.
Mr. McInnes : Hear, hear.
Mr. Macl'herson: Local authorities
may have to pay more under the Bill,
and surely in that case, if they were op­
posed to the principle of the Bill, they
would have been very quick indeed to
have made representations.
Mr. Mclnnes: That is hypothetical.
Mr. Macpherson : I remind hon. Mem­
bers that in any case it is not the local
authorities who elect us to come here;
we represent the people.
I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State, who has given his
own experience, but I, personally. have
had representations. and I have even been
present at conferences at which there
have been resolutions about this matter.
Nobody can say that there have not been
representations in favour of the principle
of the BilI.
Mr. Mclnnes: By whom?
Mr. Macpherson: I also know that
cases have occurred where desirable
developments have been held up simply
because members of local authorities
105
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
have been reluctant to take away a man's
property without giving him what they
considered to be fair compensation. That
is an answer to the hon. Member for
Glasgow. Central.
Mr. McInnes: On a point of order.
The hon. Member has stated emphatically
that representations have been made.
Surely we are entitled to ask him to tell
us by whom they have been made.
.
.
.
The ChaIrman: That IS not a pomt of
order.
Mr. Mclnnes: It is a good point of
debate.
Mr. Macp~enon: The hon. Member
must recogmse that when the present
legislation was introduced in 1947 it was
hotly opposed. and it has been opposed
ever since. Representations have been
made continually ever since. I should not
like to say that I have put them all into
one file and that I could produce the
file but I assure hon. Members that there
ha~e been many representations and that
I know of constituency cases.
. .
Mr. Willis: How do they reac!,. the
hon.. Member? He IS not the MmIster
deahng with them.
11.0 a.m.
Mr. Macphenon : Tbe second objection
which hon. Gentlemen have taken was
that most acquisitions by public authori­
ties are being done by agreement between
a willing buyer and a willing seller. In
some cases. undoubtedly, the seller may
be willing to sell, and in a few cases
anxious to sell, bu.t in most it was a
voluntary sale only m a techmcal sensebecause the buyer did not in fact have
recourse to compulsory power. As the
hon. Member for Glasgow, Central saId
on Second Reading, it was quite plain
in some cases that the seller knew he
would be forced to sell, and agreed be­
cause he would only incur additional cost
if he opposed the authority wanting to
bu
Y.
The purpose here is a simple one, how­
ever complicated its effects may be. It is
to revert to the rules for assessing the
value of land which were laid down in
the 1919 Act; that is, the amount which
the land. if sold in the open market by
a willing seller to a willing buyer. might
be expected to realise-which is com­
monly known as the fair market value.
Planning Bill
106
The hon. Gentleman says there is no
demand for reversion to fair market value
in Scotland. I cannot accept that. It is
not only contrary to my experience, hut
is contrary to all probability and to the
sense of fair. play.
. Suppose It was true that that demand
dId eXIst at the present day only m
England. and suppose we accepted the
Amendment to exclude Scotland from
this part of the Bill: what would our
constituents say if fair market value was
payable in England and something less
in Scotland? Would not that be. to use
a phrase from the silver tongue of the
hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl),
psychologically wrong and ethically
dubious? I think it would indubitably
be unethical.
Then the hon. Member for Glasgow.
Central (Mr. Melnnes) asked whether. if
Scotland were excluded. there would be
any need to have an Act at all. The
answer is a simple one. We are seeking
in this Bil! to do justice in. individual
cases. By It, the mdlVldual will get more
as a result of this Bill than he is getting.
That is because he will be getting fair
market value. It may be that in certain
cases fair market value would be less than
what he would get without this Bi~.
but the pomt IS that It IS faIr
market value, and I suggest that for
the benefit of good plannmg for the future
the seller should have tbe advantage of
faIT market value because It IS psycho­
logICally TIght.
Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman
has taken an elegant phrase from my hon.
Friend the Member for Widnes _(Mr.
MacColl) but has misapplied it. May I
ask him why it is more unethical to have
a different arrangement for compensation
in Scotland. if local requirements are
different, than it is ,(0 have different rights
for a variety of things in England and
Scotland?
Th
.
M
M
h
r.
acp erson:
e answer ]s
because such rights have ar,isen over a
long period of time. But in this particular
case it would be unethical if there was no
comparison with fair market value. I
doubt whether the three hon. Gentlemen
opposite would really welcome the idea
that anyone in Scotland should receive
less than fair market value for his
property, whether large or small, or.
indeed, that they should get less out of
107
Tolt-'n and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MACPHERSON.j
it than ,they would get in similar circum­
stances in England.
I turn now to the second point. If we
are to apply the same principle of fair
market value are we to do it in the same
Bill? I accept the principle laid down
by the 'hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.
Ross) that we should have separate
legislation where required. The hon.
Gentleman referred to the Report of the
Royal Commission, though I do not think
he referred to this paragraph. The Com­
mission recommended:
" . . . where there is a probability or even a
possibility of a Scottish application clause
becoming lengthy and complicated, legislation
:l"elating to Scotland should take the form of a
separate Scottish Bill."
Separate legislation is undoubtedly a
convenience to the general public in
Scotland-including lawyers and local
authorities-ilven where the principle is
the same. But where ,the principle is the
same and there are no great difficulties
of applicat,jon. it cannot be said to be
required. The question then is whether
there are great difficulties of application
in this Bill. I believe that hon. Gentle­
men will find as we go ,through the Bill
that there are not. In this Clause, the
application of the subsection is clarity
itself, and if we look at Clauses 1 to 7,
we see how little application is involved.
Mr. McInnes: I am obliged to the
hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why,
in the Scottish Press during the past week
or two, there has been a flood tide of
the legal profession
letters from
indicating that this in itself is a very
complicated matter, and that bringing
Scotland in makes it even more com­
plicated? Does he know ,that even the
local authorities have protested against
it? How can he make that statement in
the light of those facts?
Mr. Macpherson: I do not for a
moment deny that it is a complicated
matter; nor do I deny that any form of
application makes a complicated malter
more complicated. We have to have a
balance in this matter. The hon. Mem­
ber for Kilmarnock referred to the
difference that there is a Lands Tribunal
in England and said that the phrase is
meaningless in Scotland where arbiters
are used. With respect, that is not so.
He will remember that the system ,)f
arbiters was established in both countries
Planning Bill
108
by the 1919 Act and the Lands Tribunal
Act provided for lands tribunals to be
set up both in England and Scotland. but
so far the Act has not been implemented
in Scotland. Later. the 1954 Aet-I refer
to the Scottish Act-looking forward 10
the time when it would be implemented.
referred to the Lands Tribunal and not
to arbiters. I refer the Committee to
Section 69 (6) of the 1954 Act. which is
applied by Clause 43 (4) of this Bill. Hon.
Members will perfectly well understand
that individual arbiters in Scotland per­
form exactly the same functions as
members of the Lands Tribunal in
England. I understand that the only
difference is that they are appointed for
particular cases, whereas members of the
Lands Tribunal are members of a stand­
ing Tribunal.
I know that there have been protests
from lawyers in Scotland. and I sympa­
thise very much with their grievances.
but if there is a grievance. it can be met
in the same way as the Labour Govern­
ment met it when they passed a United
Kingdom Act in 1946. I know that the
Royal Commission commented a liltle
unfavourably on that procedure. but we
have to balance disadvantages against
advantages. In 1946 the Acquisition of
Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act as it
applied to Scotland was re·enacted as
the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation
Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947.
What is more significant is that the
same hon. Members who complain that
we ought to have a separate Scottish Bill
also complain of the delay in bringing
Measures before Parliament. I ask the
Committee to recognise that this is not a
party matter. Any Governmen t faces a
dilemma so far as Scottish legislation is
concerned. If we ,have separate Bills for
every subject. the amount of Scottish
legislation that we could pass would be
greatly reduced. There would be even
more delay in bringing Measures before
Parliament. I ask hon. Members to
remember what happened the last time
we had separate town and country
planning legisla tion for Scotland.
Mr. Willis: It was introduced at the
end of the Session.
Mr. Macpherson: That exactly illus­
trates the difficulty we are in. We are
trying to get legislation through. and the
Opposition have their part to play in
opposing and holding up legislation as
far as they can.
109
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
Mr. Mitchison : We are not holding up
any legislation.
Mr. Willis: We walked out, and were
not there.
Mr. Macpherson : As the hon. Gentle­
man says, in the end, the last time we
had separate town and country planning
legislation, the Opposition 'walked out,
and so hon. Gentlemen must realise that
if we are now to have separate Bills for
everything dealing with Scotland, that
will make our present Parliltmentary sys­
tem quite unworkable as far as Scotland
is concerned. In this matter, as in all
others, we have to do what is best on
balance, accepting the disadvantages as
well as the advantages. In view of the
amount of legislation which we are intro·
ducing this year, not to mention the legis·
lation which we have no time to intro­
duce, ,we think that the balance of
advantage lies in having a combined
United Kingdom Bill,
I now turn to the last question, and
that is, having decided that we should
not have separate Bills, whether in this
matter of the method of application the
drafting is the best possible, As hon.
Gentlemen will agree, it would be pos­
sible to have one very long application
Clause for Scotland, instead of the
system adopted here of applying each
Clause separately. The Royal Commis·
sion objected to that way of doing it, and
I think myself that the balance of con­
venience for anyone who wants to refer
to Acts of Parliament is to be able to
see, when he looks at a Clause, how that
Clause applies in Scotland without having
to look up a long application Clause. I
think the hon. Gentleman will probably
agree that if we are to have a single
United Kingdom Bill that is the better
way of drafting it, because it is very much
more convenient for all concerned. For
these three reasons, I hope the Commit­
tee will agree to reject this Amendment.
Mr. Willis: I am bound to say that I
have 'rarely heard the Joint Unde<r­
Secretary make a more pitiful case on
anything than the one he has just made.
It is quite obvious from the number of
interjections ,which have been made in his
speech that the number of questions
begged in what he was saying was enor·
mous. Indeed, we could not interject
enough to cover them all.
Planning Bill
110
The hon. Gentleman based his case
under three headings: first, whether the
principle of Clause I should be applied
to Scotland; secondly. whether it should
be applied in the same Act; and thirdly,
whether the method of application should
be dealt with in the same Bill, Perhaps
I might, before proceeding to deal with
those argruments--.,because 1his is an
important Bill-say what we think about
this. We were treated once again to the
argument which the hon. Gentleman used
in the Second Reading dOlbate, and that is
that if the same principle is to apply, it
should be applied in the same Act of
Parliament. Surely, the legislative history
of Scotland over the past ten or twelve
years has proved that to be quite wrong.
11.15 a.m.
Between 1945 and 195], and even since,
we have passed dozens of Acts of Par­
liaments concerning Scotland, putting into
effect exactly the same principle as has
been put into effect in England, but we
had different Measures. There were vast
Measures-for instance, the National
Health Service Bill. We had the Town
and Country Planning Bill of 1947 and
amending legislation to it. All these
matters were dealt with under separate
Bills.
It is true that we might desire to apply
the same principle in Scotland as is being
applied in England. That is no argument
why we should have one Bill, because
historically very rarely has that been the
case. This is particularly true of matters
concerning affairs about which Scotland
has its own separate legislation, its own
separate law and its own separate Scot­
tish Departments. Of course, there is a
case for one Bill for, say, National Insur·
ance, but not where we have separate Jaw,
long established and separate institutions,
different in most cases from those of
England. The faot that we might decide
to apply the same principle is no reason
why we should put it in the same legis­
lation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the
Town and Country Planning Bill which
decided the sum to be given for loss of
development value on a United Kingdom
basis. That did not prevent us from
having two Bills. Even where Treasury
expenditure is involved it does not mean
that the granting of such expenditure by
Parliament is not carried out under
separate legislation or regulations. We
111
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. WILLIS.]
hardly ever pick up the Order Paper of
the House of COIIllllOns without finding
on it affirmative. resolutions or prayers
dealing with some matter for Scotland
and England separMely; in fact, there
are some on the Order Paper today. So
I cannot accept that as a convincing argument from -the hon. Gentleman. Indeed,
he knows that most of -the evidence is
against it.
Arguing why we should accept the same
principle in the same Bill the hon. Gentleman said that in this case ,the application is very simple. I have been trying
to point out that we should not necessarily do so, for reasons given by the
Royal Commission, with which the people
of Scotland are familiar. I notice that the
hon. Gentleman confined his remarks to
Clauses 1 to 7. I do not know, Sir
Robert, whether I could read out the
application of this Bill -to Scotland in
Clauses 14 and l5? If 'that makes for
simplicity, I do not know what simplicity
means, so maybe I could give an
example?
The Chairman: Just by way of
example, but the hon. Member must not
got too far.
Mr, WilIi.: I do not want to take the
remainder of the Sitting by reading it
all, so I will give one example. Clause
15 (7) reads:
.. In the application of this section to Scotland. for any reference to section sixteen of
the Act of 1947 there shall be substituted a
reference to scction fourteen of the Scottish
Act of 1947; and the preceeding provisions
of this section, except subsection (6), shall
apply to claims for additional consideration
such as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (9) of the last preceeding subsection as
they apply to claims for compensation payable
under that scction, with the substitution, for
any reference to the person entitled to receive
the compensation or purchase price in respect
of such. an acquisition or sale as is mentioned
in sub~ection (1) of that section, of a reference to any person who has received consideration ullder section one hundred and eight of
the Lmds Clauses Consolidation (Scotland)
Act, Js:45 (as read with section sixty-two of
the Scottish Act of 1954) in respeet of such
an acquisition or sale:'
Mr, McInnes : Quite clear.
Mr. Willis: Surely the Joint UnderSecretary would not suggest that this is
simple? Of course, it is not the worst
example in this Bill. Even lawyers find
it difficult to disentangle, and have said
so bluntly.
Clause 14 has a long
Planning Bill
112
application provISIon extending to
slightly over a page.
That is not
simple either. I have no wish to read
it to the Committee, but no one in hi.
senses would suggest that this was simple
either for the people who will bave to
administer it-local government officer.
whose time will be wasted in cutting
bits out of this and sticking it into other
books or trying to go from one Act to
the otber-nor for lawyers, nor, for that
matter, for the people concerned under
this Bill. They, of eourse, will not understand it at all and probably will have to
meet extra expenditure in paying lawyers
to understand it for them. Certainly it
does not help them.
The hon. Gentleman then dealt with
the question of whether we should do this
in the same Measure with reference to
the convenience of Parliament. He said
an example was set by the 1946 Act, and
this was quoted during the Second Reading debate. Well, conditions were rather
different then. We did not have Scottish
Standing Committees. Apart from the
'tremendous volume of work necessary
immediately following a war, work which
would have been necessary by any
Government faced with the transition
from war to peace, there was the simple
administrative fact that we had no standing committees.
We now have a Standing Committee of
the Scottish Grand Committee and there
is no reason why, under the present
Standing Orders of this House, we cannot
have two Scottish Standing Committees
sitting at the some time.
Mr. Macpherson : Has the hon. Gentleman worked out the simple sum of where
we would get the Members?
The Chairmao: Order, order. This
must not go too far. I have allowed the
hon. Member some latitude in giving examples, but we must not go too far into
the constitution, and so on, of the Scottish
Grand Committee or the Scottish Standing
Committee.
Mr. Willis: Naturally I accept your
ruling, Sir Robert. but the hon. Gentleman raised the administrative argument
and I am only replying to it. However,
I will only add that with the addition of
English Members we could get two Scottish Standing Committees of 35 or 40
members under ,the Scottish Grand Committee.
113
TOIYn and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman
said it would be quite easy. It would not
be easy but my point was that it would
scarcely be possible under the present
Standing Order.
Mr. Willis: The Chairman has already
told me that I must not go into this at
length, but if the hon. Gentleman will
examine the Standing Order and will
realise the small number necessary to
form a Standing Committee of the Scottish Grand Committee, he will appreciate
that it is possible, and I think he will
find that this was pointed out in debate
on the floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman had little other
than ,that to say about including Scotland in this Bill and altogether he omitted
to answer a single one of the important
considerations affecting the point of
whether Scotland should be in this Bill
or no. We start with a fundamental
principle of democracy and there I quote
Professor Sutherland who, writing in the
current issue of the Juridical Review,
talked about the yearning of the individual to be concerned with a Government
which he can comprehend. If we put
Scotland into this Bill very few people
there will comprehend what is being done.
They do not feel associated with this Bill.
The proceedings of this Committee are
hardly mentioned in the Scottish Press.
In other words, the people of Scotland
feel divorced from what is happening
here, and, incidentally, are resentful
about it. Those who know what is being
done and are able to follow this procedure are certainly resentful.
If this
were considered as it OUghtl<to be considered, by the Scottish Grand Committee, our people would understand what
was going on. It would be much more
fully reported.
Mr. Macpherson: Why?
Mr. Winis : The experience of the hon.
Gentleman should tell him why.
He
reads 'the Scottish Press-the Scotsman,
the Glasgow Herald. and the other Scottish papers. Surely he knows this from
his own experience? It would be out of
order to discuss this point now, but it is
a fact and the hon. Gentleman will know
that it is so. He is violating an important democratic principle by putting
this in the Bill.
Planning Bill
114
When we come to examine what
happens as a result of this action, what
do we find? We find that we are discussing Scottish legislation mainly in a
framework of English conditions. Up to
the present we have had three Amendments to the Bill. Practically all the
speakers to those Amendments were
English Members. I do not object, because that is proper. Practically all
those English speakers quoted English
examples, and had it not been for my
hon. Friends and myself the hon. Gentleman would not have said a word about
how they affected Scotland, what were
the conditions in Scotland, or anything
else about them.
In other words, we are not only
discussing Scottish legislation in an
English context but we are making
decisions in an English context. Nothing
else can happen in this Committee.
A
decision must be made in the light of the
evidence brough t before this Committee,
and the bulk of that evidence relates
solely to England. No one can read the
reports of the first two sittings without
finding that this is true.
What is the position in this Committee
at present? We have six Scottish Members here. We have the Joint UnderSecretary and the hon. Memb~r for
North Angus and Meams (Sir C.
Thomton-Kemsley), who speaks mainly
from a professional point of view based
in the main on an English practice; we
also have the hon. Member for Lanark
(Mr. Patrick Maitland), who scampers in
and out this Committee room like a
frightened mouse. I do not know where
he is now but he is not here; when we
discuss Scotland the hon. Gentleman is
not even present.
We also have three
Scottish Members on this side of the
Committee. The remainder are English
Members.
The result is that decisions are made
purely in the light of English arguments.
and we can do nothing about that. I
suggest that this is unsatisfactory and
that most people in Scotland resent it.
The Joint Under-Secretary has said
nothing about this----
Mr. Macpherson : The hon: Gentleman
is doing himself an injustice if he says
that decisions are made purely in the
light of English arguments. At any point
he can put the Scottish position and how
lIS
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COM MONS
[MR. MACPHERSON.j
Scotland would be affected. That is the
advantage of his being here, where the
decisions are being made
11.30 a.m.
Mr. Willis: But what are we really
doing here? The other day we had an
Amendment moved which was couched
in English lerms. The debate took place
on that Amendment and, apart from the
speech made by the hon. Member for
North Angus and Meams practically all
the other speeches related to England,
and even his did to some extent. As
members of this Committee. we now have
to try to make up our minds how to vote
on matters about which we have practically no knowledge at all, namely the
practice obtaining in England. If we Iry
to put a Scottish point of view, the
majority of this Committee have to try
to weigh up that case on the basis of
something we are saying in the context
of a discussion about which they know
nothing at all. Surely nothing could be
more undemocratic than that. I suggest
to the 'hon. Gentleman that he has not
actually addres~d himself to this
argument.
An interesting point in connection with
this Clause is that we are unable 10 get
the Government officers to attend this
Committee'...They really are in charge of
this matter and Should be advising us
about it. Town and country planning
is not the Under-Secretary's department.
We are unable to obtain the services of
the Solicilor-General, although we have
asked for him. I asked the hon. Gentleman some questions on the last Amendment that was discussed about the practice
relating to notices to treat in Scotland.
but he said nothing about it. He told
us something about the Lands Tribunal,
but I do not ,think he told us whether
the practice was the same or not. The
hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) told
us something about notices to treat and
gave us some of the statutory information
concerning them, but I do not know
whether or not that applies to Scotland.
That is one of the things which I wanted
to put to the Solicitor-General. We are
unable to get either of the Ministers who
are really responsible for this Bill, and
that is not good enough.
When we come to the matter of time,
is it really satisfactory that Scottish Members should have to sit here listening to
Planning Bill
116
English discussions and that English
Members, including Ministers, have to sit
here for a very long time listening to
Scottish Members? Surely that is a
complete waste of time. 1 have no doubt
that if the Scottish Members had not
been in this Committee the Minister of
Housing and Local Government would
now have been discussing Clause 2, 3 or
4. He probably would have got much
further with this Bill than he has done up
10 the present, and of course he is now
condemned to si,t through this debate for
a long time because if the hon. Gentleman does not accept Our Amendment.
then, of course. Scottish Members will be
taking part in these discussions instead
of having separate discussions of their
own.
If I might again quote Professor
Sutherland's article in the current issue
of the Juridical Review, he says this:'
.. The greatness of Scotland has lain in its
independence of thought."
and I want to suggest to the hon. Gentleman ,that when we have been allowed to
give practical effect to that independence
of thought on previous occasions we have
invariably produced better Bills than the
English Members have produced. I am
not giving a reason for that. I think
probably there is quite a good reason.
The problems of Englano are much
greater and we can do certain Ithings in
Scotland which are much more difficull
to do in England.
One could quote many such Bills, the
National Health Act, Town and Country
Planning in which we had very important
changes made in the Scottish Grand
Committee which ,the English people did
not have, and even right up to the Food
and Drugs Act. In that the great fight
took place over registration, and we have
a different Act from England in thM
respect. That was Ihe issue on which
great Parliamentary battles were fought
on the Second Reading, in the Committee stage and on Report, and we got
something different in Scotland. Of
course. we had a Minister who was pre·
pared to accept and weigh all the arguments. We could not have done this
without a separate Bill because we would
have been voted down in the Committee
stage and, of course, automatically on
Report.
On the Rating and Valuation Bill,
which is a somewhat similar subject, I do
117
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
not know whether the hon. Gentleman
knows that if he looks 'at the First
Schedule to that Bill he will see that the
contents, SO far as they relate to England,
are unjust. The same figures were put
into the Scottish Bill, and it was not until
the final stages of that Bill that we managed to persuade the Government that the
figures were wrong and we got different
figures substituted for them.
When we are allOWed to exercise our
independence of judgment and thought,
to apply principles which are accepted
upon a United Kingdom basis, and to
apply our minds to their application in
Scotland, we are able to get different
Bills from those which exist in England
and Wales. It is true that in Scotland
we can experiment a great deal in a
number of matters because the problems
are not so acute and the machinery is
somewhat different. We can try things
out; and, incidentally, it is not a bad
thing for England that we can do that
because England is then able to learn
from our experiments. It is always a
good thing to be able to test something
out on a small scale and then to do it on
a larger scale if it works.
These are some of the more fundamental considerations which thoughtful
people in Scotland have in their minds
when they object to this practice. and the
hon. Gentleman really has not given
consideration to any of them. To be quite
fair to him, I think if he did apply his
mind to them he would probably agree
with us, but, unfortunately, as a Junior
Minister he cannot do that, so naturally
he does not provide us with any of the
arguments to rebut ours.
For all these reasons, which I believe
to be good and which most people in
Scotland would accept, we think the
Government ought to accept this Amendment.
The Government have given us a
number of reasons why they should not
accept
our
Amendment,
and
I
think when the hon. Gentleman
reads the report of this debate
tomorrow he will see that they were not
very good reasons. In fact, as I said
at the commencement, they begged so
Planning Bill
118
What I think has happened with regard
to ,this Bill is something w,hich has happened in other Bills----.rhat, in view of
rhe weight of evidence brought to bear
on rhis matter, the English Ministers ,have
decided to do something about it. That
is all well and good. They then said
to the Scottish Ministers, .. We are introducing a BiU about this and you will
have to come in because we cannot have
this without applying it to Scotland",
and ,the Scottish Office looked at it and
said, "It lhas cer;tain advantages; we will
come in ".
Of course. we are not against fair compensation. In fact, if the hon. Gentle-
man does me the honour of looking at
my speech on the Second Reading he will
find that I said:
"It is quite fair to say that we are anxious
to do justl'ce to individuals the same as everyone else."-[OFFICIAL.. REPORT. 13th Novem-
ber, t958: Vol. 595, c. 653.]
Of course we are. But the English
Minis,ter said this to the Scottish Office
and the Scottish Office was then told to
'produce something about it, and so it
produced what reasons it could and pUl
'the necessary subsections into the BiU.
The hon. Gentleman knows that this goes
OI', and so do 1.
Mr. Macpherson : I can assure the hon.
Gentleman that the English Ministers
never said to ,the Scottish Ministers,
" You have got to come into the Bill ".
Mr. Willis: What happens is this: the
English Ministers say, "We are doing
this, and we .think you ought to come
in 'because we want lo apply the Bill
to the United Kingdom as a whole. W,hat
do you ,think 'about it?" The Scottish
Office then agrees to come in and gets
its Jegal people ·to dratt the necessary
subsections to apply to Scotland. I do
not want to give the hon. Gentleman. examples of where this ,has been done in
the past. but it has been done several
times 'by this GovernmeI't. T'he Govern'ment .then· come along to the debates
and naturally we, as the Opposition, say
"Wihere is the evidence about this?"
The ,fact is that the Government have no
'evidence relating to Scotland in this
many questions and in many respects were
matter.
quite inaccurate that they would hardly
do as a rebuttal of the arguments which
have been put forward so forcibly by the
hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)
and for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mc1nnes).
Over and over again we have asked the
Secretary of State and ,the Joint UnderSecretary to give us some information,
but we have had no definite information
at all. The Secretary of State told us
119
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. WILLIS.]
that he had had something said to him
in conversation. Surely we do not pass
legislation on the basis of gossip? The
hon. Gentleman himself said that he had
heard resolutions passed at conferences
but he was rather shy about telling us
which conferences.
Then the hon.
Gentleman referred to the letters coming
into his office and being filed in his
Department. The hon. Gentleman is not
the Minister for town and country
planning, and I do not know how he
comes into possession of this correspondence. There seems to be something
wrong with the Scottish Office if they
are sending the correspondence to him.
Mr. Macpherson: That is not what I
said.
Mr. lViHis: I think the hon. Gentleman
did say that he had received correspon.
dence in his oflice. The fact is that up
to the present we have had nothing
tangib], about this matter at all and We
do not know the facts about it. We
have asked a lot of questions, and what
the ham. Gentleman has done, with the
assistance of his statistical advisers, is to
give us a few figures relating to what
might happen in Scotland. Even about
that he is not too certain.
11.45 '.m.
For lnstance, on Tuesday we debated
an Amendment of the hon. Member for
Crosby (Mr. Page), who suggested certain
figures in relation to England. At least
in that case we were given some indication of the size of ,the prOblem, but when
we discuss Scotland, we have no evidence.
We do not know whether there is a
problelll, how big or small it is, whether
it is big enough to need legislation, or
whether an administrativc machine would
cost more than ,it was worth and be too
cumbersome. We are operating in ,the
dark.
Clearly, we ought to have more
infomu lion. We cannot accept the reply
of the Joint Under-Secretary. It failed
to comince my hon. Friend the Member
for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Melnnes) and
myself, and most of my hon. Friends who
are familiar with this matter. It ignored
the more fundamental question of
separate legislation for Scotland. Praetically nothing was said about that or
about the difficulties of Scottish Memhers. rhis is a matter affecting Scotland
Planning Bill
120
and yet being decided in an English
context by people knowing little or
nothing about Scottish conditions.
This procedure has become much too
prevalent over the last two years and we
have dealt with major Bill after major
Bill in this way. If the Government want
to persuade us that this is a good thing
for Scotland. they must produce better
arguments than we have yet heard.
Mr. Mitchison : I make no apology for
intervening in this important matter
which concerns England just as much as
it concerns Scotland. The union of the
two countries was a matter of agreement.
and the proper discussion of Parliamentary business which concerns both countries is a matter which affects England
as it affects Scotland.
The Joint Under-Secretary was per~
fectly right to say that I listen with rapt
attention to whatever he says. if not
always for the reasons he had in mind.
I listened with especial attention today
because he was giving us the views of the
Government. this Government of weathercocks which shift one way or another.
The gustier the weather, the more rapidly
the weathercock shifts. In this Bill, the
Government have succeeded in the remarkable performance of shifting on two
points, on one of which they were wrong
and on the other of which they were
right.
I shall not dwell on the one on which
they were wrong, but we know that the
Clause is a complete reversal of what the
present Prime Minister put forward in
the 1954 legislation. We had all that out
on Second Reading and I shall not now
repeat it. That was a case where they
had done the wrong thing and where they
have now done the right thing. Equally,
what they are doing about Scotland is a
complete reversal. There can be no dispute about that, for one has only to read
the Title of the Bill.
So far, town and country planning Acts
have been separate Acts and the vital
changes proposed required separate Acts.
If separate Acts werc necessary before,
how comes it that one Act is now thought
to be sufficient? What is thought to be
the reason for this turn of the weathercock? This is no unimportant matter,
because it relates not only to the present
Bill, but to Bill after Bill which we have
had recently.
121
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
I shall not mention it in detail, but
we bad a single Rent Act, althougb conditions in England and Scotland are very
different. It may be that they are less
different in thi~ respect,. but even the
Government WIll recogmse that when
seekinl,l to .deal.with t~o separate scbemes
of legIslatIOn m a smgle. Measure they
mus! be prepared to glVe some. convincmg reason for the change. It IS up
to the person desiring a change and who
proposes to alter two separate schemes
of legislation by a single Measure to
show good reason why that course should
be followed.
If these were two trifling matters which
did not make much difference, one could
excuse joint legislation on that ground,
but even so, it would be much less convenient. I propose to consider this
matter from the point of view of the
effect on the public, and secondly, from
the point on proceedings in the House
of Commons. I dissociate what I am
about to say from my personal feelings.
Personally, I very much like having
Scottish Members in a Committee, for
they give vigour and force to our discussions, and I find that refreshing and
welcome. For purely intellectual and
emotional reasons, I like to have Scottish Members in an English Committee.
However, that is a quite different matter.
Perhaps I should add that I have never
sat in a Scottish Committ~ and I do not
represent a ScottIsh constituency, but I
have so.me knowledge of the country and
a ScottIsh connection.
This is a complicated matter. It will
affect the public and the public is deemed
to know the law. It does not get to
know the law by reading Measures of
this kind. and we all ~ecognise that.
Such Measures have to be mterpreted and
acted upon ?y p",?ple who are speclahsts.
The speclahst~ WIth whom w,: are concerned.,m thIS c.ase are n;amly local
authootIes and. SImIlar bodIes and tbe
much abused tflbe of lawyers.
Both are in the same difficulty, If
tbey want to find out what the Scots law
is on this matter, not content with looking up past statutes where they will find
the Scots law separately, they will have
to come to this Measure and first read
the English law referring to statutes
which apply only to England, then turn
right round. get hold of an application
Planning Bill
122
Clause, and go back again to the English
law and then apply that to Scotland.
Legislation by reference is bad enough,
but this is a sort of legislation by reference squared. First one takes the English
reference and then applies the Scottish
application, and then one goes over it
again. Of course, we produce legislation
in such a way that there is no alternative.
One cannot insert a neat little asterisk
at the side to say that Section IS of an
Act means Section 22 of the Scottish Act.
There has to be another subsection at
the end of the Section. One even goes one
degree worse, as the Joint Under-Secretary
said. One is often driven to ~aving whole
CI~uses-and there are some m thIS BillwhIch apply only to Scotland. In the
Rent Act there was a complete Schedule
whlcb apphed only to Scotland.
That kind of inconvenience in a matter
which is supposed to affect many people-and tbe excuse for the Bill is that there
has been grave injustice to the publicis of practical importance. We are told
that this is a Bill which will help the poor
man who did not have enough compensation when his land was taken, It is
true that the vast majority of those cases
disappeared when on Tuesday the ParIiamentary Secretary said that most owneroccupiers were unlikely to be affected.
However, there will be such cases, and
the small farmer is an example,
It is bad enough to present such people
with a complicated Measure, but wben
the Scots have to go through the English
a lication and then back to the Scottish
p~gvisions, and when their advisers have
to do the same, there must be produced
some beavy and weIghty reasons for thIS
course of action,
Lawyers are always competent people.
and I sball never foul my own nest by
saying anytbing other tban that. However. there are varying degrees of corn.
petency. Lawyers practising in a sm~ll
way have to interpret thIS sort of .'egJslation and will find it a little more dIfficult
to do so than will a larg.e firm of lawyers
with partners able to gJve speCial attention to this side of the matter. The small
town lawyer is someone whom we should
try to help in a case of thIS kmd. He
is the man to whom small fa~ers and
?thers will go f?r adVIce. It wIll make
11 much more difficnlt for ~uch.a lawyer
if the legislation is enacted m thIS way.
123
TfJwn and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.j
Then we were told that it does not
matter and that it is a question of
balance. The word" balance" occurred
three times in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and I waited anxiously to
hear what was being balanced. I never
got ,there, but I shall later suggest what
the hon. Gentleman is -balancing.
T:hat is the first point of drafting. There
is also the converse, because English
Members are called upon to consider the
Bill not only as it applies to England, but
as it applies -to Scotland. There is a
fruity bit in Clause 6 (5). I propose to
read this for the benefit of the English
Members so that they will appreciate
how well qualified we all are to consider
a Scottish matter. It says:
.. for requiring a public authority possessing
compulsory purchase powers who(i) propose to acquire the dominium utile
of any land .. .
(ii) also propose to require the discharge
of the land from any feu-duty or other incumbrance such as is mentioned . ..
to serve . . . on the person entitled to the
feu·duty or other incumbrance:'
I am sure -1Jhat in due course we shall
hear all about the person who is entitled
to ,the feu-duty or other ,incumbrance,
but at the moment that provision baffles
my comprehension. I am sure that the
Joint Under-Secretary, ,to whose observations on this point I shall listen with
even more than my usual rapt attention.
will enlighten us in due course. From
the point of view of lawyers and drafting,
this is a silly kind of arrangement.
12 noon.
To some extent. Dhat ,was recognised by
the Secretary of State on Second Reading,
and ,he had some remarks to make on the
precise point we are now considering.
whether the Scots should be included. He
first of all said that the true remedy is
consolidation of all the relevant statutes.
As I understand it, that means consol idation separately of the English statutes and
then of the Scottish statutes. What the
Government apparently propose is that
first we should have a Scottish scheme
of legislation and an English scheme of
legislation, -then we should have an Act
which upsets both of them and applies
to both countries, and then we should
cut the baby into pieces again and have
two consolidation statutes, one for
England and the other for Scotland. No
other meaning could be attached to what
Planning Bill
t24
the Secretary of State said. 1 am not
altogether surprised that we have heard
no more about it today, because if any
proposal shows up the lunacy of including Scottish -and English provisions in this
Bill, it is that proposal.
We then come to something which
was a poor second best-partial consolidation, which sounds like a person entitled
to another incumbrance. The Secretary
of State said:
"Short of full consolidation, however. there
is another possible means of helping Scottish
authorities and lawyers"-
it is to be noted that the right hon.
Gentleman recognises that they need some
help.. which [ have been looking at, and which
could be invoked much more speedily. This
wouW be to carry the present Bill through
all its stages on to the Statute Book "-
I ask the Committee to note this very
carefully.. and then to re·enact it in purely Scottish
terms, as an Act applying to Scotland only.
This was done in 1947 ..."
Here the right hon. Gentleman gave
another instance, and he continued :
.• If a repetition of this procedure seems
desirable, the Government will certainly be
willing to consider taking this course of action
at the appropriate time."-[OFFIC1AL REPORT,
13th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 636.J
That is not exactly one of those clear
and unqualified Governmental promises
which we occasionally are given. If the
Joint Under-Secretary is in a position to
improve on it by saying what it is proposed to do, 1 will gladly give way to
him and let him tell us, but that is wha t
was suggested to meet the difficulty: we
pass a united Act and then re-enact it for
Scotland only and, having taken it twice
through Parliament instead of once, we
then partially remedy some of the troubles
arising from running the English and Scottish legislation together. There could not
be a clearer recognition that there is
something wrong. The remedies seem to
be so involved, fantastic and unreal that
it would be much simpler to accept the
Amendment and to let the Scots out here
and now and then to draft another Bill
for Scotland, if it is needed.
That leads me to the second point. We
are told that there is no difference between
the two countries. I agree that in purely
legal terms we can, with a little trouble
and the use of a lot of technical language.
draft adapting subsections which from a
125
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
legal point of view will finally have the
effeCI of applying this English Bill to
Scotland. It can be done, but this does
not mean that the substance of the matter
is necessarily the same in the two
countties, and such evidence as the
English Members have heard seems to
indicate the contrary. We have heard
Scottish Members denying that there is
any demand for this Bill in Scotland or
that the kind of case to which the Bill
is intended to apply arises often enough
to entail legislation. I do not know. I
am not a Scots Member and I am not in
a position to say. This has been denied
by the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Mclnnes : He did not deny it. He
did not produce any evidence.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps formally my
hon. Friend is quite right. The hon.
Member did not deny it, but he gave us
an indication that he did not altogether
agree.
This is a dispute on a Scots matter of
fact, on the extent and character of
Scottish demands, and we, the English,
are called upon to sit here and in the last
resort to divide and decide upon it. It
may be said that there might be a Welsh
matter in which we were called similarly
to divide and decide, or a London matter,
but there is a deep distinction between
England and Scotland in respect of this
kind of issue which does not exist as
between parts of England and Wales and
the distinction lies in the character df the
land holding in Scotland and the character
of Scottish institutions, including, of
course, local government. The Joint
Under-Secretary of Sta'te said that it was
unethical to have different arrangements
in the two countries.
Mr. Macpberson: Obviously the hon.
and learned Member has not been
listening with that rapt attention which
he claimed. I did not say that it was
unethical to have different systems. I
said that it was unethical to have unfair
market values.
Mr. Mitchison: I thought the hon.
Member said that what was fair in
England was fair in Scotland and that
1t would be unethical to have different
standards of fairness, but if I misunderstood him I hastcn to 'apologise to him.
All I can say is that what is considered
fair in one country is not always considered fair in another. When I asked
27125
Planning Bill
126
him "bout the rights of widows, which
differ in the two countries, I did not
regard his answer as convincing, because
I understood him ~o reply that it depended
on h()W long ~he wid()W had been married.
Perhaps that is a misunderstanding. One
never knows about Scottish law. I dare
say it is all right.
Seriously and soberly, there is a suffi·
cient distinction between the possibilities
of demand and the possibilities of
grievance in the two countries to make
it unlikely, on the face of it, ~hat we shall
'have any advantage by a joint Measure,
and we may well have a considerable
disadvantage.
I come to values. I can see one side
of the scale quite clearly, and it is the
side which has prevailed in all the previous legislation. I listened, I dare not
say with rapt attention ,but with the best
attention that I could possibly manage, to
all that the Joinl Under-Secretary of State
said, and I did not hear what was in the
other side of the scale, nor have I yet
ascertained what is in the other side of the
scale, although I have a suspicion that the
Government do not like to be bothered
with having two separate Bills, one for
England and another for Scotland. If
there is any other reason I shall be very
glad indeed to hear wh.at it is, but that is
how it struck me. Apart from this, I
cannot see why they change on this issue,
·never having changed berore.
That led me w consider the Parliamentary position in one way and another.
At the moment there is a Scottish Standing Committee considering a Scottish Bill
and there is a Committee considering the
P<griculture (Small Faomers') Bill, with
one Scottish Memlber, the hon. Member
for South Ayrshire, (Mr. Emrys Hughes)
who, you will be glad W hear, Sir Robert,
has been called to order for suggesting
that Scots was spoken in the Garden of
Edcn. When asked what that had to do
with the Bill he said that the Garden
of Edcn was a small fann. We welcome
that sor:t of intervention. and I am sure
that his
valuable.
contribu~ions
have beM very
There are, however, not very many
Scottish Members in the House. We have
them in their own Scottish Commimee
and we have them in two other Corn.
mittees because the Bills in question
apply to both countries. This is rather
B
127
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.)
unfnlr on them, on Scottish legislation
and on Scot·tish interests as a whole. I
do not know what Bill the Scottish Committee is considering at the moment, but
I know thn'! it will be definitely the
poorer by the absence of three Members
- I would not say its best Members in
the sense of throwing any doubt on the
other Members, but l'hree Members as
good as they could possibly have and
who have to sit here or io Committee on
the Agriculture Bill. This ought to be
avoided jf it possibly can be avoided.
What a'bout the procedure? Do we
gain an enormous amount by this process
of having a single Bill, and if we do, at
whose eXlpense do we gain it? Speaking
for myself, I feel that I sha1l have such
difficul·ty in understanding the application
of some of this BilI to England-I a m not
talking of ob.truction or anything of that
sort. as I am sure the Committee appreciates-that it is bound to hold up matters
a little through having Scottish adaptations and e"planations of the position of
Scotland introduced at every point not
merely among the Scots but as sClmething
which the English Members are bound to
lJOnsider and decide.
On the balance of Parliamentary convenience. ,the only possible advantage
W1bich I can see is Ihat a GClvemment
which is in an unholy hurry with its legisJohon ·think they can get it through a
little more quickly in the {Clrm of one
Bill instead of two. If that is the only
tlhing in the scnle. it is a very light weight
indeed. Penhaps the Government think
that these Scots are dangerous. Penhaps
they think, " Let us divide them ·up among
the Committee. Three of them is about
as many as we can ever manage in an
English Committee."
The right course ,is to .(et them have a
separate Bill and to settle it among themselves. If the result does not turn out
exactly the same as in England, it is not
a question Clf injustice or not injustice but
of rather different conditions in the application of a similiar principle. ,I rememrber
-that we tried to introduce an English
Clause into a rating Bill exactly on the
lines of one ·which Ihad been included in
Scottish legislation. We were tClld, .. You
cannot .have !that Ihere. It was a conces
siCln made by ·the Government to the
Scottish Opposition and we could not possibly let the English Opposition have it.
p
Planning Bill
128
'JIhey ,are not nearly 'as good as the Scots."
We get differences, and there ought to be
differences, because the system of law and
the rights of people and the whole business of administration are sufficiently different to justify them.
The present tendency 'has been increasing. I ,wiH say nothing about personalities, because I do not know them, but I
notice that since the present Secretary of
State has .held office this tendency has
seemed to show some increase, and
of course it has met with very
unfavourable comment in Scotland.
"'paTt from the merits of the cnse,
the Scots do ·not like 'having their
legislation tacked on ·to English legislation, getting the .impression. rightly or
wrongly, that a1l that 'happens is that the
appropriate English Minister says to the
Scottish Office, "Here you are. Take it
or leave it. You can come in jf you like
or you need not come in if you do not
wigh to do ·so."
It is felt that ·the
Scottish Office never considers the matter
sufficient·ly from the Scottish point of
view. J am, of ceurse. talking about the
political 'heads of the Scottish Office in
this respect. <It .is had to create that kind
of impression in a country. We are not
going back to the days of wars between
one country and another.
The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. I allowed a good deal of latitude
by way of example, but he is now going
too far.
12.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison : I bow to your decision.
Sir Robert, but I had already snid that
I was not going back to those days. and
I am certainly not going to do so, but I
am entitled to raise the point, when considering whether we should have a
separate Scottish Bill, not only that that
kind of thing creates very bad feeling in
Scotland, but that it does not improve
feelings on the English side either. We
occasionally get a little resentful at the
Scots taking up a certain amount of the
time Cln a United Kingdom matter, and it
was for that reaSOn that arrangements
were made for separate Scottish consideration of Scottish Measures, Scottish
Estimates and so on.
I am very sorry indeed that what I
regard as a most important principle is
being abandoned by the Government for
129
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
no good reason that I can see, and for
what appears to me and my hon. Friends,
if it is the only reason, to be a hopelessly insufficient one-that they consider
it to be a tactical advantage in the progress of their legislation or in handling
Scottish opposition.
Mr. Macpherson: Perhaps I may be
able to say a few words further. It seems
to me that the hon. and learned Member
for Kettering has laid far too much
stress on the purely Parliamentary programme aspect of this matter.
I dealt
in my speech with the essential matter to
start with. There is in this Bill one
central principle. and the question is
whether the application of that principle
involves great differences in procedure in
Scotland. So far as I can see, the Bill
does not do so. and I believe that hon.
Gentlemen opposite as well as my hon.
Friends on this side realise that that is
so.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have
drawn attention. for example, to particular differences, to which I drew attention,
of the superior of the feu. That is a
difference merely of application only, and
does not involve different procedures or
differenoes in principle. If there are no
real differences of principle or of essential procedures in the application of the
principle, then I think it is very reasonable to have one single United Kingdom
Bill.
Mr. Mitchison : Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what difference there is in
those respects between this Bill and previous town and country planning legislation?
Mr. Macpherson: The original application of the Uthwatt principle had to
be worked out in detail for each country,
and no doubt i,t was simpler to work it
out in terms of legislation in separate
Bills. Here, we are going back to one
central principle, which is relatively
simple, and, that being so, there is no
real need to have two separate Bills.
Mr. MilchiSoD: I am sorry to ask one
more question. Town and country planning legislation, as we see from the Long
Title of this Bill, is mostly a question of
the 1947 Act, and also of the 1954 Act.
which was the Tory policy for dealing
with development. ,We then had the
Prime Minister in this country and another Secretary of State in Scotland. Why
was that done?
Planning Bill
130
Mr. Mncpherson: That was a different
Bill, dealing with a totally different problem ; that is, the problem there was quite
a separate one. We were getting away
from the principle of the 1947 Act, which
was a combination of existing use value
and the share of the compensation fund.
The 1954 Act had a different effect
altogether, and had to be worked out
again in the light of the original H47 Act.
Having made ,this difference in the 1954
Act, it is a perfectly simple matter to
deal with this principle in one Bill now.
If there had not been the 1947 legislation, it might have been more difficult.
Mr. Willis: We cannot allow the Joint
Under-Secretary to get away like Ihis.
Very serious arguments have been
addressed to hiD) about this procedure.
but he has not deigned to answer a single
one of them.
Mr. Mncpherson indicated dissent.
Mr. Willis: It is all right for the hon.
Gentleman to shake his head, but he has
not answered one of them. First of all,
on the question about evidence, we have
had no answer. Secondly, on the question of decisions being made concerning
Scotland in the context and on the basis
of arguments mainly applicable to England, he has said nothing about it. We
really cannot allow ourselves to be
fobbed off in this manner. The third
question was about ,the administrative
aspect of the procedure itself. Is it or is
it not possible ,to get this Bill through a
Scottish Standing C.o!l1mittee, in the
"light of ,the changes made in the ScoUish
Standing Committee in the last Session?
This is one of the arguments adduced by
the Government for this procedure.
Another question which I should like
to ask is whether he really sticks la what
he formerly asserted, namely, that the
applications of this subsection are simple.
Does he think that that was relevant to
this argument? I do not want to waste
the time of the Committee, but the hon.
Gentleman knows us well enough from
experience in the Scottish Grand Committee-at least, he ought by now-to
know ,that we would not accept this brief.
curt answer of his that ,this is simply an
issue of principle as an answer to our
arguments. We expect something better
than that. If we spend some time in
advancing serious and very important
arguments. we expect them to be
131
Town and CounIry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. WILLIS.]
answered, and not brushed aside, and I
think he ought now to address his mind
to some of them.
Mr. Macpherson: I did not mean to
be in any way discourteous to the hon.
Gentleman, but I do not think that, apart
from the last two points or perhaps the
last one of all, he has raised any new point.
but has merely reinforced what his hon.
Friends have said previously.
Mr. Willis: But the hon. Gentleman
did not answer them.
Mr. MacphersoD : I think I did answer
them, and if he will read what I said in
the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think
he will find that I did so.
On ,the administrative question of what
could be got through the Scottish Standing
Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know
about the pressure of business before the
House and the difficulties we have had
in the past. This is seriously a balanoe
of advantage. It is extremely imporlant
that we should not overload the Scottish
Grand Committee, and I must tell hon.
Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee that I do not think they realise
that Scottisb hon. Membe'rs, as it is, spend
about four times as long in Committee as
their Englisb counterparts.
Mr. Willis: We do not mind that.
Mr. Macpherson: We have only a
limited amount of time in which to get
our business through. The hon. Gentleman has really made the point that what
hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to
do is to see that we do not have legislation
of this kind for Scotland at all.
Mr. Willis: No.
Mr. Macpherson: Their opposition is
really based on a desire not to apply this
legislation to Scotland. If that is so, I
feel that we ought to decide here and
now, as we have said already, that it
should be applied to Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether its application to Scotland
was simple or not. I believe that the
provisions for the method of application
to Scotland are relatively simple, though,
undoubtedly, there are Clauses on which,
at the present time, hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to have some explanation,
though I doubt very much whether they
need as much explanation as the hon. and
Planning BiJI
132
learned Member for Kettering tried to
make out. We appreciate all that, and I
have already said that we have tried to
do it in the way we think best. Granted
that this is a Bill concentrated on one
single, salient principle, and that its
application is relatively simple and does
not involve different questions of procedures to any extent, I think it is reasonable that we should have only one Bill.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman slides
away, and we get this kind of thing over
and over again. What about this question? Does he agree that it is satisfactory
procedure that important decisions affecting Scotland should be made in the context of discussions centring round conditions obtaining in England? This is
the kind of thing which bas been happen.
ing in this Committee over and over
again.
Mr. MacphersoD: The answer to that
is that it is constantly happening in our
Parliamentary procedure in the House and
in Committee, and it is absolutely unavoidable in the circumstances of the
case.
Mr. MitchisoD : Has not the right hon.
Gentleman the Minister of Housing and
Local Government, who is here and is a
member of the Cabinet, anything to tell
us about his opinions on this matter,
which concerns both countries and is not
purely a Scottish question?
Mr. J. A. Sparks: The Minister has
been sitting here and saying nothing. Has
he been in consultation with the Scottish
Office about this matter, I wonder, or has
the Scottish Office been in consultation
with him? Does he agree with what has
already been said with regard to the
application of the principles of this Bill
to Scotland, because he is in charge of
the Bill and is taking charge of the
Scottish element in it?
The right hon. Gentleman is the Government Minister in charge of this Bill,
and, therefore, it is reasonable for us to
ask, first of all, what competence he has
for speaking about Scotland, and what
consultations there have been between the
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is essentially an English and
Welsh Department, the Minister himself
and the Scottish Office. H would be
helpful if he could tell us exactly where
the connection is between the two Departments, and what consideration he, as
133
Town and Coulltry
4 DECEMBER 1958
Minister in charge of this Bill, which
incorporates the Scottish equivalent
within it, has given to it. If the right
hon. Gentleman could give us some
answer to those questions, I am sure the
Committe would like to know them.
The Minister of Honsing and Local
Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): At
one point the hon. Member for Acton
(Mr. Sparks) came very near to arguing
for a separate Scottish Parliament. I do
not think that that is the view of the
party opposite, but, after these proceed.
ings, it might get some support on both
sides of the Committee.
I can tell the Committee that this Bill
has been framed from the outset jointly
between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the right hon.
Gentleman indicate who possesses the
dominium utile?
Mr. Brooke: I do not know which
possessed it, but it was the Scots who
produced the phrase. When the hon.
Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis)
was alleging some hours ago that this was
a Bill put up by me and that later I told
the Scots about it. and that the Secretary
of State for Scotland considered whether
or not Scotland should come in. I can
deny that absolutely. The Secretary of
State and I have been working on this
from the very start, and both he and I
have no doubt whatever that this change
Division No. 2.]
Planning Bill
134
in the law should be made in both coun.
tries. My hon. Friend the Joint Under.
Secretary of State for Scotland was
absolutely right in the distinction whicb
he drew between this Bill and the earlier
legislation. The early legislation was
concerned with the formulation in each
case of a new codo of law. In this Bill
we are simply applying one fundamental
change of principle to the existing law,
both in Scotland and in England and
Wales.
12.30 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: It is not a code; it is
a bad Bill.
Mr. Brooke : For that reason, it seemed
to be convenient that the whole should
be put in one Bill. Undoubtedly. there
are specific differences between the two
countries in this matter; nevertheless the
general issue on most of the Clauses is
precisely the same. For my part, I think
it is a good thing that thete should be
hon. Members for Scotland here. helping
to frame a Bill that will apply to England
and Wales as well as to Scotland, and
that there should be Members from
England and Wales present. listening to.
and maybe taking part in the debate of
Scottish Clauses or subsections because
this is one principle of common interest
to the whole of Great Britain.
Question put, That subsection (3) stand
part of the Clause;The Committee divided: Ayes 19.
Noes 14.
AYES
Balnlel, Lord
BeYln., ,J. R. (TOII8th)
Bla.-Davllon, ,J. A.
Brooke, RI. lion. Henry
Cole, Norman
Corfleld, Capl. F. V.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Elllolt,R.W.(He'oaltle upon T,ne,N.)
Curden, HBrold
Ha.rrison, Col. ,J. H. (E".)
HUI, Mr•. E. (W,ttwlnlhawe)
.rohnson, Dr. Donald (Carll,le)
.rotlnlon, Erla '(BlaokJe1)
Blenlllnlop, A.
Butler, Mrs. .roYeD (Wcod Groon)
Filch. A. E. (Wlgan)
Glblon, C. W.
Irlllne, A.... (Edge HilI)
MaC'ColI, ... E.
Mclnnes, ,J.
Mltchllon, G. R.
Morrll, PerOJ '(8wanna, W.)
8l1verman• .ruIlUI (Alton)
Macpherson, Hlall (Dumtrlll)
Maltla.nd, IHon. Patrlcll (LllnaJ1l)
Page, R. C.
Powell, d. Enooh
Price, D:nld (Easllelch)
Temple, dohn M .
NOES
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Clause stand part of the Bill
'Mr. C. W. Gibson : This Clause makes
such a fundamental change in the law
.that I feel it should not be passed without
some comment. It changes a law which
has been' in opera~ion for some years,
which I agree has been difficult to work.
Skeffington, A. M.
Spar1ul, ,J. A.
Wllklnl, W. A.
WlIlil, Eullaoe (Edinburgh, E.)
It created a lot of trouble for local
authorities generally. but at least it was
an attempt to get for the community
values which were created by the community itself and not the owner of the
land. The Government have made two
,bites at the cherry. The first one has
failed and now we have this one which
purports to apply the principle of the
135
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. GIBSON.]
D)arket value of the land but has anum·
ber of qualifications and modifications,
as we shall find as we go through the
Bill.
Planning Bill
136
wish -the values created by the action
of the community to come back to the
community, then there is plenty of
evidence and experience already existing
in the world to enable this to be done,
instead
of the values going to the private
It seems to me that part of the justification of this Clause is based upon a landowners.
complete misunderstanding of what
This Cia use makes it possible for
happens in the country as well as what owners of land to scoop the whole of
I think is a fundamentally wrong prin- the increased values in their land, and
ciple. I do not believe that it is a good it eliminates the attempt to get belterprinciple, or a good social policy, that ment back into the pockets of the commonopolies in land ownership should be munity. I was never very keen about
entitled to scoop into their own pockets the method which the 1947 Act applied.
all the values in land created by the corn· I was one of the critics of that portion
munity, without any regard to the effect of the Act. T think we ought to treat
that has upon the cost of local govern- tbis malter as simply as possible. It is
ment work.
possible-indeed, it happens every day
in
the country-to value effectively every
When I suggested during the discussion
of the first Amendment that it was plot of land, and we ought to take the
possible to meet the difficulties which I ba lance of increased values for the benefit
thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were of the people who create them.
This Bill will give those values to the
imagining and that the problem of value
in the land if we did not do this would landowners. This point needs to be
be so great as 10 be insuperable, it was stressed in order that people may know
~uggested in effect that I did not know
exactly what the Government are up to.
what I was talking about. I asked the All the changes they have made in
Minister if he was aware that this is done housing and land legislation since they
in other countries and I quoted the City came into office have had the effect, and
'of Copenhagen. [did so because T of deliberate purpose, of turning over all
happened to have a copy of the land the plans of the Labour Government to
values map of ,that city, which has for act a Iiltle more fairly in this matter to
many years been valuing every five years the people of this country generally.
every parcel of land in the city and That is all wrong and this Clause ought
marking it down. Incidentally, it has not to pass without somebody saying so.
been taking the increased land values for
When I suggested during the Minister's
the benefit of the community on the speech at the first Silting of this Corn·
principle that, but for the existence of miltee that he was suggesting there
the community on that land and the would be difficulty in arriving at land
tbings that the local authorities do, the values because of the arguments which
land would probably not have any value would take place, the right hon. GcntJea t all and certainly nothing like the value man himself said quite rightly that the
which it now 'has.
owners would be entitled to make repre.
It seemed to me that the hon. Member sentations. Nobody wants to take away
for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. that right, but to suggest that the diffiThornton-Kemsley), who said that it was culties are so great that it would be
almost impossible to value individual impossible effectively to value land and
plots of land in a large area in order to to get back to the community what the
arrive at a local figure, was trotting out community has created, and that this
absolute nonsense in view not only of must be left to the landowners, seems
,the experience of Holland but also of to me to be all wrong.
other countries, several of which are in
This is especially so when we realise
our own Commonwealth, and also the that the Bill will increase the cost of the
City of New York.
purchase of land by the London County
I do not say that the Minister is anxious Council by at least £1 million a year,
to get these values back to the com- which is almost 25 per cent. This means
munity; I do not think he is, but if that there will be a much heavier burden
,those here' who are reasonably minded on the London ratepayers. It is true that
137
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
there are one or two set-offs against that
which will reduce the figure considerably,
hut it means a heavier burden on the
London ratepayer.
What applies to Lon>lon applies to
every other city in ,this country. Wherever
'in moo re ,they want to buy land by way
'of a compulsory purchase order, instead
of having the benefit of the 1947 Act
or the two-<price system, they will have
to pay ,the so-<:alled full market value,
'and the more ,they improve ,their city,
the higher will become the price of the
land they want to buy. It seems ,to me
~hat for a Government who are crowing
about giving local authoriti"", greater
freedom and more opportunities and a
'Chance to develop their own personalities
ln nheir own districts, ,to do this is to do
the very opposite of what .they say in
,their propaganda.
I want to see local authorities encouraged ,to go ahead. I want to se<l
them having ,larger financial resources,
I want to see them using these themselves
as far as they can, and I regret very much
:that the effect of this Bill will be to add
unnecessarily ,to the cost of the land
which ,they must buy in order to perfonn
itheir services and, as a result, add to the
cost which the rates will ,have to bear in
the long moO.
Jt seems to me, therefore, that in the
interests of true, progressive local gov.
ernment this Clause is completely wrong.
I hope .the people outside will realise
what the Government 'are imposing on
the local authorities of this country who
make any effort to carry out their proper
function, not only of building 'houses but
'schools, welfare centres and all the other
buildings 'Mhich local authorities must
have if .they are to be really effective
in ,the work they are doing, All will
fin,d themselves faced with a very much
heavier price for the land they must have,
'Mhich in most cases ,they cannot get by
.agreement, and for which they have ·to
use the compulsory purchase procedure.
That seems to me to be bad sociology
and bad eoonomics. hut ut .is what the
Minister of Housing is imposing on us.
I am amazed that a London Member
should be prepared to father a Bill Wlhicl1
will impose so heavy an increased burden
on London finances as will this one,
As the Minister probably knows, at last
Tuesday's meeting of the county council
:a full report was made on this Bill. It
Planning Bill
138
was shown there ,that the extra cost to the
L.C,C. alone, let alone ·the twenty-eight
London ,boroughs, would be in the neighbourhood of £1 million per annum, if
they continue to buy land at the rate at
which they are buying it ,these days, as
they must if ,they are to solve the great
slum problem and ,the housing problem
of London by the provision of a large
number of houses, and if we are to build
the new town promised to London. I am
not sure where that is going now in view
of ·the recent legislation introduced by this
Government.
If all these things 'are done, London
will have ,to find a lot more money and
in a way which is completely unfair, and
which ,will be a burden on the London
ratepayers. I ,hope, therefore, ,that the
people of this country will know that this
IS what the Government'are doing.
12.45 p.m.
Mr, Sparks: Before we part with this
Clause the right hon. Gentleman should
give ,the Committee some explanation of
the reasons for changing the basis of
paying some compensation for land. He
is proposing ·to scrap the basis which at
present exists and to substitute for it
what is generally regarded as being open
market values. In my opinion, this
Clause takes something of a leap in the
dark. I should like the right ho.n.
Gentleman to explain precisely what he
proposes should take the place of the
existing basis of assessing compensation.
I think he 'hopes 'that by substituting
market value for the existing basis, that
market value will be based on the use to
which the land could be put for specific
purposes, designated or otherw,ise, in the
Development Plan.
I do not know whether ,the right hon.
Gentleman has had time to read the very
interesting memorandum sent to all Members of the Committee by the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors. They
are a body of people who have had considerable experience of land values and
the basis upon ·which 'land is transferred
from ownership to ownership. They say
this, which is very significant.
.. It is widely believed . . . that the land
will be valued for the specified uses, and for
those uses only. which are in fact permitted
or are assumed to be permitted."
They go on to say this significant thing:
.. But the market would not necessarily limit
its price to the vatue of the tand for such
specific uses; the market would have regard
139
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SPARKS.]
to all the potentialities and disabilities of the
land. but with the knowledge that certain
developments would definitely be permitted."
Mr. Brooke : Sir Robert, on a point of
order I am very anxious to show courtesy
to the hon. Member, but it is quite
impossible for me to answer the question
that he is raising now without reference
to Clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill because I
would submit that he is now discussing
not the general principle but the detailed
application of it, to which I understood
we would go when this Clause was <lis·
posed of.
The Chairman: I think it would be
better on the Motion that, The Clause
stand part of the Bill to deal simply with
the general principle and at no great
length because the matter has been dis·
cussed on Second Reading and many
points have been discussed on Amend·
ments. I cannot permit arguments which
have been deployed on the various
Amendments to be deployed all over
again on the Motion That the Clause
stand part.
Mr. Sparks: I must obey your ruling.
of course, Sir Robert, but it is very
difficult when we are faced with a proposal to take away something and we
cannot discuss what is to be put in its
place. The hon. Gentleman is definitely
taking away something, and whilst, of
course, it may be true that what I referred
to just now also arises on later Clauses,
what, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman
is doing is to substitute a basis for compensation which is likely to prove pretty
disastrous to local authorities.
There is a case in point which has
come to my notice and which has arisen
since ,the inception of this Bill. A certain
local authority was taking steps to acquire
a property comprised of a certain number
of buildings and a certain number of
vacant lands. The value of that land
for the purposes for which the local
authority was going to use it was some·
where in ,the region of £4,000. This value
was upon the basis that the right hon.
Gentleman is withdrawing from the BIll,
and before the local authority actually
proceeded to acquire the land the owner
came along and said, " I have had an offer
from such and such a company of £7,000
for my land". It seems to me ,that what
the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to remov.e a fairly straightforward standard of
Planning Bill
140
assessing value on land and replacing it
by sheer speculation, because by removing
this standard basis he has left nothing
upon which a reasonable assessment of
the value of this land can be based. Therefore, by removing this basis he is opening
wide what I think to be the possibility
of abuse.
If this basis is removed from the Bill,
what is to prevent an owner, if he does
not think the local authority is going ,to
pay sufficient, saying to one of his friends,
"You offer me £7,000 for this piece of
land" and then going to the local authority
and saying, "You only want to pay me
£4;000 but so and so is prepared to pay
me £7,000 for it." If the basis is going
to be removed, then in assessing the value
of that land the fictitious offer of £7,000
has got to be considered, ..nd nobody
will know that it is a fictitious offer. Consequently, what the right hon. Gentleman
is doing is to open wide the door to speculation ; I cannot say that he is opening it
wide to fraud, but possibly to collusion.
If there is any safeguard against this,
we should be told what it is, but a market
value is based on many things, including
offers of purchase, and if there is any way
of being able ~o detect when fictitious
offers are made for land which are above
the price the local authority feels inclined to pay, if there is any way of
sifting it out and arriving at a genuine
market value, all well and good, but I
do not think there is anything in this
Bill when once this basis is removed.
This is an accepted and understood
basis and it can be amended, if necessary,
without completely taking it off the
Statute Book. It can be amended to conform to what the right hon. Gentleman
thinks ought to be done. Instead of that,
he wants to take the whole basis right
away and there is nothing satisfactory to
be put in its place, except, as far as I
can see, this wide prospect of speculation,
collusion and many other factors which
would make it frightfully difficult to
arrive at a genuine value for that land.
The consequence is that local authorities
will undoubtedly be mulcted of large
sums of money when they go to acquire
land, because of the abuses which the
removal of the existing basis will create.
Mr. Brooke: I think tha t the hon.
Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been
making some pretty sharp charges against
141
Town and Country
4 DECEMBER 1958
the competence of the Lands Tribunal.
There are bodies in this country which
are quite able to distinguish between
fictitious offers such as he described and
bona fide offers for purchase. He rested
his argument on the case-and I made a
note of his words-that we were altering
an accepted basis of compensation. Of
course. the fundamental point is that the
existing basis is not accepted. and we
have no more cogen1 evidence of that than
what the Franks Committee said about it.
The Franks Committee is not an in.
terested party in this matter. but anybody
reading its Report must be well aware of
the Committee's dissatisfaction, and. as it
thought. justifiable dissatisfaction, which
the eXisting basis caused.
The hon. Member said that this was
likely to prove disastrous for the local
authorities. I have had no representations
of that kind from any of the local
authority associations. The hon. Member
may have private knowledge of the
Borough of Acton. but I must say that
neither he nor the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) must claim to be
speaking for local authorities as a whole.
I will not go over the whole argument
which was deployed so ably on the
Second Reading by the Parliamentary
Secretary. The fact that -the Bj][ did have
a Second Reading without a Division
showed that his general argument, which
I attempted to endorse and support in
winding up the debate. received the
acceptance of the House. That is nlYt 10
say that the Committee should not consider many of the proposals further. but
I would submit that there is widespread
and almost unanimous support for the
general view that the fundamental basis
should be changed.
The ·hon. Member for Clapham said
that the London County Council was
going to lose £1 million a year. I have
the London County Council agenda in
front of me. and the figure was not
£1 million; it was £250,000.
Mr. GibsoD: I am sorry to interrupt.
I did not say the London County Council
was going to lose £ I million, I said it was
going to cost them £ I million a year and
I referred to the set-offs which they
would get.
Mr. Brooke: What the Report of the
General Purposes Committee to the
Council said was:
Planning Bill
142
.. It is estimated that the net additional cost
to the Council might be in the region of
£250,000 each year 0"
The Report continued:
.. The Council offers no objection 10 the
general principle that land bought by public
authorities should be bought al its market
value."
The Report went on to make further
references to the Bill. but they were 10
later Clauses to which we shall come in
due course.
Mr. MitchisoD: As I see it, the right
hon. Gentleman has accused my hon.
Friend quite wrongly,
He gave a
different figure for a different purpose.
If I may put it this way. his was a gross
figure subject to the set-offs which he
mentioned. whereas the figure given by
-the right hon. Gentleman is the net
figure.
Mr. Brooke : Yes. and it is the net
figure which is significant in this case.
Mr. Gibson: I must get this right on
the record, I will read the actual Report
which was before the Council on Tuesday
last, which says this:
"If the additional burden of compensation
under the prospective Act which will fall on
local authorities is as much as the 25 per
cenl. mentioned in the Financial Memorandum
to the Bill, then the gross additional cost to
the Council might be about £1 million a year."
That is the figure I quoted, and the Minister must not misrepresent me.
Mr. Brooke: Read on.
Mr. Gibson: I agree personally with
the market value for land; what I do not
agree with is that the landlord should get
it all. I want to take the correct value.
Mr. Graham Page: Read on,
Mr. Gibson : This Bill does not do that
and, therefore. I think I am entitled-Mr. Page: Read on.
Mr. Gibson : I will read on if there is
time. I will read it at the next sitting
if the Committee wishes.
It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN
adjourned the Committee, without Question put. pursuant to the Standing Order,
Commillee adjourned until Tuesday,
9th December, at half-past Ten o'clock.
143
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Planning Bill
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATIENDED THE COMMITIEE:
Grimston, Sir R. (Chairman)
Balniel, Lord
Bevins, Mr.
·Biggs-Davison, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.
Brooke, Mr.
Butler, Mrs.
Co1e, Mr.
Corfield, Mr.
du Cann, Mr.
Elliott, Mr.
Fit<:h, Mr.
Gibson, Mr.
Gurden, Mr.
Harrison, Colonel
Hill, Mrs.
Holt, Mr.
lrvine, Mr. A. J.
Johnson, Dr. D.
\
J(jhnsoo, Mr. E.
MacCoII, 'Mr.
MC'lnnes, Mr.
Macpherson, Mr. N.
Maitland, Mr.
Mitchison, Mr.
Morris, iMr. P.
NiC{)lson, Mr. N.
Page, iMr.
Powell, Mr.
Price, Mr. U.
RllJmsden, Mr.
Silverman, Mr. J.
Skeffinglon, Mr.
SpaTks, Mr.
Temple, Mr.
Wilkins, Mr.
Willis, Mr.
144
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
STANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
TUESDAY,
9th DECEMBER, 1958
Fourth Sitting
CONTENTS
CLAUSB 1, agreed to.
CLAUSE 2, under consideration when the Committee
adjourned till Thursday, 11th December, 1958, at
half.past Teo o'clock.
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
NINEPENCB NET
"
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of
Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are
requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied, but any corrections which Members
desire in the bound volumes should be marked in this Report.
The copy of the Report containing such corrections must be
returned to the Editor's room, House of Commons,
not later than
Saturday, 13th December, 1958
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY.
FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF
THE BOUND VOLUMES OF' PROCEEDINGS
IN STANDING COMMlTIEES.
t't{JNTED AND PUBLISHED DY HER MAJESlY'S STATIUNERY OFFICE
To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway, LONDON, w.c.2
13a Castle Street, EDINBURGH, 2
423 Oxford Street, LONDON, W.J
109 St. Mary Street, CARDIFF
39 King Street, MANCHESTER, 2
Tower Lane, BRISTOL, I
2 Edmund Street, BIRMINGHAM, 3
80 Chichester Street, BElFASI
or fr,Qm any Bookseller
PIUNTBD
IN ORBAT
BRITAIN
145
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
STANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
Tuesday, 9th December, 1958
{Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
I.~(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION.)
146
million a year. After deducting capital grants
in respect of roads this is likely to be reduced
to about £750,000 a year. Against this the
Couneil will be entitled to receive housing subsidies on high-cost land and an addition will
be made to the block grant at appropriate
rates in respect of other services. After taking
all this into account it is estimated that the net
additional cost to the Council might be in the
region of £250,000 a year."
TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING BILL
Clause
Planning Bill
TO
Motion made, and Question proposed
[4th Decemher], That the Clause stand
part of the Bill.
Question again proposed.
10.30 a.m.
M•• C. W. Gibson: Last Thursday, I
was engaged in trying to correct what I
regarded as a misunderstanding on the
part of the Minister, and, though the
right hon. Gentleman is not here at the
moment, I shall have to carry on. The
point was that the Minister said, to quote
last Thursday's OFFICIAL REPORT:
"The hon. Member for Clapham said that
the London County Council was going to lose
£1 million a year."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Cqmmittee D, 4th December, 1958, c. 141.]
which is not what I said. I was proceeding to quote from the Report whioh
was presented to the London County
Council at its last meeting in order to
substantiate what I had said, which was
this':
.
"This is especially so when we realise that
the Bill will increase the cost of the purchase
of land by the London County Council by
at least £1 million a year, which is almost
25 per cent. This means that there will be
a much heavier burden on the London ratepayers,"
I went on to say:
.. It is true that there are one or two set-offs
against that which will reduce the figure considerably, but it means a heavier burden on
the London ratepayer."-[OFFICIAL REPORT,
Standing Committee D, 4th December, 1958,
c. 136-7.]
I was proceeding to quote the Report
presented to the L.e.e., and I should like
to quote it calmly now. The Report says
this:
.. The Council's expenditure on property
acquisition is at the rate· of £4 million-£5
million a year. If the additional burden of
,compensation under the prospective Act whieh
will fall on local authorities is as much as the
25 per cent.. mentioned in. the financial
'memorandum to· the Bill, then the gross addi1ional eost to the Council might be about £1
27138
Then the Report went on to express
views about other Clauses of the Bill
which the Council wanted raising on
Second Reading. It said: . ,
<' (1) The Council offers no objection to the
general principle that land bought by public
authorities should be bought at its market
value."
That is what I said at ,he last meeting
of the Committee. The Report goes on;
.. (2) It is regretted that the Bill contains no
provisions dealing with the questions of betterment resulting from the exercise by public
authorities at public expense of their statutory
functions save for the very limited provision
for set-off in respect of the enhancement of the
value of any other land held by the owner of
the land taken.
(3) The Government should recognise that
acceptance of the principle of market value as
put forward in the Bill will seriously affect the
cost of land purchased by towns receiving
London's overspill under the Town Development Act, 1952, although the enhanced land
values in those cases are due directly to the
operations undertaken under that Act; and
should either so amend the Bill as to exelude
those enhanced land values from the compensation payable by the receiving authorities, or,
alternatively, so to increase the grants payable
under the Town Development Act, 1952, as to
off-set this."
~
That is the point that I was trying to
make. The Clause with which we are
now dealing lays down the principle of
market value for land taken by public
authorities. Like the L.e.C., I do not
object to that, and I never have done.
What I do say is that the increased values
of land which result from the actions of
local authorities carrying out their
normal statutory duties ought not to go.
into the pockets of private landowners,
and, therefore, something more is needed
in this Bill in order to achieve that endan end with which I do not expect the
Government to agree. Nevertheless, it
should be said, so that the public may
lmow that, at any rate, there are some
people in Parliament who think that
justice should be done to the local
authorities as well as to the landowners.
Therefore, I say that Clause 1 ignores
the problem which, for a generation, this
House -has recognised but to which it has
A2
147
To ...." and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. GIBSON.j
. never yet finally found a solution. It
fails 10 provide t,he necessary safeguards
to protect the services of the community.
I want to quote an editorial which
appeared in The Times of 30th October,
at the end of which we find this:
.. The Government are solving one difficulty
but may be aggravating another. Large-scale
public development projects usually bring great
. betterment' to adjacent private property. Subsequently, the promoting authorities may have
to pay dear~yr for land enhaneed by their own
actions. The Bill seems, tortuously, to provide
safeguards against this for new towns, statutory
• areas of comprehensive development' and
projecls under the Town Development Acts,
though for the last it is hoped only that the
Bill . will in some measure enable them to
avoid paying values created by their own
expenditure as the town development progresses '."
This Bill should not be allowed to pass
without it being made quite clear that
there is a large body of opinion in this
House whioh ,thinks that the safeguards
mentioned by The Times ought to be in
the Bill not only because we should remember that we are being unjust to public
authorities. but because we are imposing
a larger burden on local expenditure than
there would otherwise have been and, as
a result, increasing the burden on all
ratepayers all over the country.
Mr. Arthur SkeffingtoD : I do not wish
to detain the Committee very long, but
,. I feel compelled to express my own criticisms about this Clause before we part
from it, particularly in view of some of
the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary at our sitting on 2nd December.
After all, this Clause is the very heart
of this part of th, Bill. I think it is worth
while reminding the Committee once
again that the Bill is only necessary
because of the very deliberate and grave
mistake which the Government committed in their 1954 legislation. One of
the matters which always surprises me is
ho.w the present Administration are able
to get away so lightly with all the mistakes
they make. I can only assume that so
much of the national Press is committed
to the support of the Conservative Party
that the Government get off much more
lightly than would a Labour Administration. We have only to remember the
sensational headlines about even the
smallest of Labour's difficulties between
1945 and 1951 in order to realise the
Planning Bill
148
extraordinary difference in treatment
between the two Governments.
Certainly, in the 1954 debates the
Government were warned, not only by
the Opposition but by expert opinion outside, that this two-price structure would
not work and so eminent an authorHy as
Sir Maleolm Trusiram Eve said that the
two-price structure would wreck the working of the 1954 ~cheme. Indeed, the
Opposition made that position abundantly
clear when that Measure was going
through the House, and my hon. Friend
the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl)
said on 15Lh March Ihat the two-price
system really was a shocking injustice to
perpetrate between one landowner and
another.
Yet these warnings were completely
,ignored, and the position drifted for four
years and nothing was done.
The
Minister, dealing with one of the
Amen,dments to this Clause, said that
conditions have altered a great deal since
the Uthwatt Commission report-an
expert Report-although he gave no evidence of that but said that was the opinion
of valuers. I think that the Committee,
the House and indeed the country are
entitled to know precisely what new
factors there are in the land situation since
the Ut!Jwatt Report was published, which
invalidates their iecommendations.
I
would have thought that on both sides of
the Committee there might have been
unity, at any rate, in the belief that at
least some part of the added enhanced
value of land, caused by the efforts of
the community especially in the case of
land required by public authorities,
should KO back to the public themselves.
Yet there ha ve been four years to examine
these possibilities.
It is an astonishing situation that public
authorities are statutorily charged to
undertake certain funotions, and that when
they exercise them, and "ncrease ·the value
of land, the whole of that value goes to
individual landowners, estate companies
and freeholders. In fact, four years have
passed since the 1954 legislation, but
notihing has been done ; ~here has been no
inquiry held. One hon. Member speaking
at the last Sitting of the Committee said
that various propemy in!'erests have got
togelher and put pressure upon the
Government, and ,the .result is tha,t we
have this -Bill. Of course, it 'has all been
dressed up as a,n effom to frlelp the little
149
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
man, but I do not [hink that any of us
will be so simple as ,to fall for that.
If we had any doubts about that, they
were destroyed by the Parliamentary
Secretary when, speaking in reply .to an
Amendment thM I moved at the second
Silting of the Commiuee, and referring
to owner-occu iers Ihe 'said:
p
,
., When one t\~m5 to lb:e ordi,nary ease of
the owner-occupier who 15 subject to compulsory purchase procedures, then we find
that. as a general rule, the owner-occupier
does .i~ fact rect;ive"the market value from the
acqumng authOrity.
Here. my 'hon. and learned Friend the
Member for Kettering asked "Now?",
and the Minister continued:
"Yes, now, because in the vast majority of
cases affecting the houses of owner·occupier~,
existing use ~alue and market value are idel!llcal figures. -[OFFICIAL REPORT, StandlnR
Committee D, 2nd December, 1958; c. 57.]
It is clear that in the !I'ajority of .cases
of resIdent owner,occuplers, ,they w,ll be
in precisely the same position as if the
Bill had never been introduced. What
other cases of possible hardship arise?
By 'hardship I mean cases in which land
or property is acquired by the publk
authority and that .imposes the necessity
of the owner finding a comparable alternative plot on whioh he could live, and
which he has to purchase at an enhanced
value. The only other hardship category
is [he small farmer occupying land on the
outskims of a town. I concede that the
Amendment wh,ioh I 'had the honour of
moving from ,this side of the Committee
earlier, dealing with resident owner·
occupiers. was ,too narrowly drafted to
include small farmers, but if the Govern·
ment 'had really be"" interested in ,the
small man, ,that Amendment could have
been extended ·and accepted, or alternatively, ,the Government could have given
an undentaking in this matter to consider
it later, but no undertaking was given.
Those of us who are members of local
authorities know .from bibter experience
that 'in the majority of cases this Bill will
mean an additional present to the very
large landowners and estate companies,
and I think that that cannot be said too
often. To use an old Victorian phrase.
it makes my blood boil today when I
see the sums of money paid 10 large landowners on land bought by public authori·
ties and ,the value of which has been
increased through the very duties which
the ·Iocal authority has to discharge.
Planning Bill
150
In the Cromwell Road extension
£6! million of the cost is merely to acquire
the land. For the L.ec. pan of the
Cromwell Road extension, £2,200,000 IS
the ~st of acqulflng the land the cost
of domg the work 1.S only £1,700,000.
What a fantastIc positIOn when It costs
,m?re t~ acqUIre the 'land t~ carry out
thIS socIally necessary extensIOn than to
do all the work, including the building
of fly-overs and approach roads
.
I ,think that ~hat is a fantastic situation.
We on this side of the Committee have
always believed that the small land.
owner, as a man who has to purchase an
alternative property at an inflated market
price, is entitled to be treated fairly, but
we are utterly opposed to m,aking these
vast presents to the landed mterests. 1
hope that the result of the Bill will bt:
-known not only in the House but to the
public outside, ,because it is making a
vast present to the supporters of the
Conservative Party.
10.45 a.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I agree with what has
been said by my hon. Friends and I do
not wish to labour that point. I rise to
ask a question of the Joint Under·
Secretary of State for Scotland, because
I am still doubtful about the figures for
Scotland. We tried to obtain some of
them during the discussion on the
Financial Resolution and-,;he Secretary of
State for Scotland gave some of them on
Second Reading.
As reported in column 631 of the
OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading
debate, the Secretary of State, talking of
the effects of the Bill, principally under
Cia use I, said:
.. Indeed, I would expect the average "-
that is, the average increase due to the
operation of the Clause.. to be lower in Scotland than in England for,
whatever the reasons may be, the private
market in land appears to be rather less active
north. of the Border. In the country districls,
where there is, in any case, little demand for
land for development, the present price level
is" not likely lo undergo much change. Nor is
developed land in urban areas acquired for
residential re4evelopment, for example, in the
course of slum clearance, likely lo cost much
more. The main difference is likely to be on
the fringes of towns _ , ."-{OFFIClAL REPORT,
13th November, 1958: Vat. 594, c. 631.]
As reported in column 632, the Secretary of State gives three paragraphs of
figures, but they are based on exactly the
same assumptions as prevail for England
151
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COM MONS
[MR. WILLIS.]
and Wales. He himself talks about an
average of 25 per cent.~I have worked
it out-in respect of spending by Government Departments. where the increase
expected is exactly the same proportionalely as for England and Wales. I
have worked out the figure for local
authority spending and lance again find
that the figure is exactly the same.
I want to know which is correct. Are
the Secretary of State's remarks as
reported in column 631 true? If they
are. surely ,the figures which he has given
are based on no evidence, at all. They
are not based on the existing position in
Scotland. As I ventured to suggest in a
previous discussion. all the Government
have done has been to accept the English
figures. work out a set of statistics on
the basis of those figures and try to pass
Ihem on to Scottish Members. That is
not good enough and we .ought to have
something better.
Which of these statements is correct?
If it is the statement in column 631, what
are the figures for Scotland? ,We ought
to have better information than we have
had so far because. as we have pointed
'out so frequently, there appears to be no
indication that the Scottish Office has
looked at this problem and taken mucb
evidence. nor is there any indication that
it knows very'much about it. That is
obvious from 'the contradictory statements from the Scottish Office.
The Joint Under·S""retary of State for
Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpberson): I do
not know whether I can help ,the hon.
Member. The purpose of the figure given
by the Secretary of State on 13th
November was Ito give some indication
of what the maximum scope of this problem might be. He 'said that he estimates
~hat ,the additional cost is not Hkely to
exceed a quarter of the present amount.
He was giving an indication of what ,the
maximum cost was likely to be. It is not
possible to give an accurate estimate and
he was giving the best estima,te which
could be given in ·the circumstances. It
was intended to be helpful as an indication of what ,the maximum scope might
be. and it is not possible ,to give a more
accurate estimate,
I would not diverge in any way kom
what he said as reported in column 631
-that in Scotland it is unlikely that the
extra cost will be as great proportionately
Planning Bill
152
as it is in England. In the nature of
the case it is noI possible to give ,the hon.
Member more information than th",t.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Member seerns
to have missed the point. If what the
Secretary of Sta te said, as reported in
column 631, is correct. why does he
accept the English basis of estimating
these rough calculations? Th",t is what
has been done. and I think it is wrong,
if, as the right hon. Gentleman said, tbe
conditions in Scotland are different. He
said ,that the market is not so lively and
,there is not likely to be any increase
outside the development areas on the
edge of towns.
Mr, Macpberson: What the Secretary
of State did was to give the House an
estimate of whaI would be spent by Government Departments and local authorities respectively in the acquisition of
land. Having said that it was unlikely
that the extra cost would be proportiona tely more in Scotland than in England.
surely it was logical for him to say that.
granted these figures, the extra cost in
Scotland would not be more than a
certain figure. That was all he said. It
was intended to be of assistance to the
House and I am sorry that the hon. Member has not regarded it in that light.
Mr. Willis: I think that is a poor reply.
Question PU! and agreed to.
Clause ordered to srand parr of the Bill
Clause 2.--{GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO
PLANNING PERMISSION.)
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move.
in page 2. line 32. to leave out" In .. and
to insert:
.. The next following section shall not apply
to ".
The Cbairman: If it is agreeable to
the hon. and learned Member it would
be convenient to take this and the next
three Amendments together. They are:
In line 36. at end insert" if in such a
case ",
In line 38, at end insert:
.. account shall be taken of the range of uses
which are comprised in these proposals and ",
In line 41. leave out from" be" to
end of line 42 and insert:
.. for any development for the purposes of a
use of the relevant land or that part thereof
falling within that range of uses, whether it
IS3
Tow.n and Country
9 DECEMBER 19S8
is tbe use which is indicated in the proposals
as the proposed use of the relevant land or
that part thereof or any other use falling
within that range ",
Mr. Mitchison: If you please, Sir
Robert, that would be quite convenient
to us. They are intended to go together.
The simplest way of explaining these
Amendments is to read the subsection as
it would appear as amended. It would
read:
.. The next following section ,.
·-that is, Section 3.. shall not apply to a case where the relevant
interest is 10 be acquired for purposes which
involve the carrying OUL by the acquiring authority of proposals for development of the relevant land or part thereof, and if in such a
'case on the date of service of the notice to
· treat there is not in force planning permission
for that development, account shall be taken
of the range of uses which are comprised in
these proposals and it shall be assumed that
planning permission would be granted. in
respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be, such as would permit
development thereof in accordance with the
proposals of the acquiring authority."
The Amendment makes a substantial
alteration in the subsection.
The Parliamentary Stcretary to the
Ministry of Housing and Local Govem·ment (Mr. J. R. Bevins) : I think that the
subsection as redrafted which the hon.
and learned Member has read is not quite
right.
Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the
hon. Member. I forgot 10 add the last
·Amendment. I will read again from line
39 in the Bill. It reads:
.. it shall be assumed that planning permission
would be granted, in respect of the relevant
land or that part thereof, as the case may
be, for any development for the purposes of
a use of the relevant land or that part thereof
falling within that range of uses, whether it
is the use which is indicated in the proposals
as the proposed use of the relevant land or
that part thereof or any use falling wilhin that
range." •
I am afraid that it sounds a little tangled.
but so does the Bill, and so is the subject
matter, and We cannot avoid that.
The subsection as it stands provides that
where an acquiring authority has certain
purposes, and two conditions are fulfilled
----<>ne is .that at the time of the notice to
treat there is no actual planning permis. sion in force and the other is that the
relevant bit of land is to be acquired for
·those purposes-then, broadly speaking,
· planning permission is to be assumed
Planning BiJ/
IS4
such as would at any rate include the
development
which
the
acquiring
authority has in mind.
The trouble is that, having gone that
far in this Clause, we come to Clause 3,
where We find a whole lot of other
assumptions which will often apply to
these and. broadly speaking, depend on
the .development plan: so that if the
acquiring authority requires the land for
one purpose and it is shown to be
capable of use in accordance with the
development plan for other purposes, or
perhaps for some wider version of the
actual
purpose
intended
by
the
acquiring authority, then the selling
owner gets the benefit of the assumption
not only of what the acquiring authority
intends to do but also of whatever there
may be in the development plan. I hope
I have this right, and I should be most
grateful if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to
,tell me whether, as a matter of plain
fact and reading, I have this idea wrong,
because it is not an easy matter to follow.
That is the effect of the subsection and
the following Clause as it stands.
We on this side of the Committee have
considered the matter and we feel that
this is unrealistic. We are considering a
case where there is no planning permission in existence and we are considering
it at the time of the notice to treat. We
do not believe that, if we are making an
assumption at all, we can reasonably
assume that at that stage, and that being
the position, any selling owner would get
planning permission for anything but that
which the acquiring authority intended
to do.
Let us suppose that the piece of land
appeared in the development plan as
zoned for residential or industrial use.
I! a local authority were acquiring it for
a housing estate and not for any industrial
purpose, then at the time of the notice to
treat, there being no planning permission
in force, we believe that no one would
give for one moment planning permission
to the owner in respect of anything but
tha t, housing estate.
11.0 a.m.
Let us consider what has happened by
that time, The local authority would
have had its deliberations; it would have
done it, of coW'se, in open council, and
the matter would certainly have been
reported in the local paper, if there is
lSS
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MITCHISON.j
one. Undoubtedly, everyone in ,the place,
and probably anyone from outside ,who
was interested in the place, would know
quite well what the authority was intending ,to do. Moreover, the Minister would
have had to consider the matter and give
his approval. It seems ,to me quite unreal
to suppose ,that, at that time, and given
those conditions, the planning authority,
let us say the county council, would have
given planning permission for anything
but what tile requiring authority intended
to do. I agree, of course, that, at some
earlier stage before any of ,this had come
about, there might have been a wider
possibility of use. But it has always been
the rule, a very good rule, that one treats
rights as at the ,time of ,the notice ,to treat
and one does not go back into ,the history
of the piece of land in question. The
subsection, itself, of course, ,treats rights
as at the <time of the notice to ,treat.
Just to rtake an example, if the Borough
of Kettering was proposing .to acquire a
piece of land zoned for some use other
than residential use as well' as for residential use, and it had made clear in open
council that it intended ,to acquire the
land for a housing project, I cannot see
the possibility of the Northamptonshire
County Council giving planning permission for anything else at the time of
the notice to ,treat. It is wholly unreal
to make any other assumption for that
purpose.
The next point .which occurred to us
was this. ;AIl that is fair enough as regards the' piece of land which the local
authority is acquiring, but what about the
difference between two owners. one of
whom has a piece of land which is to be
used for a number of houses and the
other who has a piece of land to be used
for an open space, both pieces of land
being in the area sought to be acquired
by the local authority? If the Committee had not rejected the proposals about
global areas which we had the other day,
I do not think that this point would have
arisen. but it has now arisen in a much
narrower and really differelH sense,.
We noticed that the Government, in
dealing with areas of comprehensive development, had been aware of this difficulty and they had accordingly put in a
provision, the short effect of which is that
one looks at the area as a whole and one
does not Pl'nalise a man because, within
Planning Bill
156
the area, the particular use for his piece
of land is less promising and profitable
than the use for another piece of land; in
other words, one does not penalise the
OWner of a piece of land which is to !le
an open space as compared with the
owner of a piece of land which, in the
same project, is to be, let us say, the site
of a factory or a house.
The Government. have provided for
that later in the Bill, and we took their
provision and adapted it for this purpose.
What we had in mind is substantiaI1y
contained in the last two Amendments
under discussion, which follow very
closely the language of the Government's
own provision. Theirs is intended to
apply to an area of comprehensive development, and there seems to be no
reason in principle that it should not
equaI1y be applied here.
To sum up, there are really two points
invol~ed, The first is the important question of principle.
Are we to make
assumptions in favour of a selling owner,
piled one on top of the other. which will
give him a better value than he would
otherwise have. when what we are con~
sidering is the market value at the time
of the notice to'treat and when the reality,
quite obviously. is that no one would
have had planning permission at that
time for anything but what the acquiring
authority propose to do? Before I leave
this major point. I will remind the Committee that, in all these matters, one ought
to try and strike a balance between the
two people, the hypothetical willing seller
and the hypothetical willing buyer of
the 1919 Act. It is. in fact. an artificial
situation. but it is not right simply to
take the matter from one point of view
and say that market value must always
be that combination of arrangements.
that accumulation of hypothetical planning permissions. which suits the owner
of the land best. If one is to assume. a
wiI1ing buyer in the acquiring authority,
one must equaI1y have regard to what it
intends to do. That is recognised in the
subsection as it appears in the Bill, but,
thereafter, a number of other things are
added which. as I see it, reaI1y complicate the matter and introduce an element
of complete unreality.
There is some artificiality alJout these
matters. but if one looks at both sides
of the question, the obviously fair thing
to do is to assume the most sensible
Planning Bill
158
Town and Coulllry
9 DECEMBER 1958
157
h)'Pothesis and, accordingly, limit one's Gentleman will have noted the opening
assumption to what ,the acquiring authority words of the White Paper, ""here we say
wishes to do and, .for that reason, to rule th,.t, for this paNicular pUlipOSe, for
out in these cases the application of the arriving at market value, we lbave to
development plan assumptions which are assume that ,the land is being sold in the
open market. The effect of the first two
made in Clause 3.
Amendments, of course, would be quite
There is stiIJ room for' certificate pro- in conflict wilth thart concept.ion.
cedure, but, .for the moment, I leave that
It might be helDful to the Committee
out. It would only complicMe matters
if
1 were to say what is the purpose of
unnecessar,ily if I were ~o discuss that
at the moment. 'Whether there is room Clause 2 (2). The idea behind it is quite
for it or not, 'I wiIJ point out that there simple. As a general rule, when a local
is an Amendment put down to leave out authority or a public authority 'embarks
.subsection (5), which is the one which on compulsory purchase proceedings,
might apply here, so that we can, for the there is already in existence a planning
purposes of our present discussion, take it permission for the particular piece of
as we like-leave it in or leave it out. land in which it, is interested. But, of
There is really no need to complicate ·1!he course, there may be circumstances in
which there is not a planning permission
issue by discussing it at .this stage.
in existence, particularly, for instance. in
Recapitulating it quite shortly, the the case of Crown development, where
second point is this. [say quite frankly planning permission is not necessary
that we put these Amendments."down under our planning legislation. We take
originally before thinking of the difficulty the view that it is right and fair and
which I harye men tioned in connection reasonable that, for the purpose of valuawith the varying use of different pieces of tion, cases wh.ere there is no permission
land within the same area to be acquired. should be treated on exactly the same
We 'have met that difficulty, ,which footing as cases in whioh there is an
worried some of us,. by using the existing planning permission. That is the
machinery proposed by the Government. sole purpose of the subsection w.e are
We hope and believe that that meets the discussing. In the view of my right hon.
point there and ensures fairness within Friend, all four Amendments would
the area as between the owner of the damage that principle.
piece of land destined for one purpose
I should like to make this absolutely
and the owner of a piece of land destined clear. First of all, as a Government, we
for another purpose. I trust that the say that, in the development of land, perCommittee will accept 1!he 'Amendment, mission which has already been obtained
recognising that it is far closer to reality, is to be reflected in the valuation, and,
far simpler, and, ·as I see it, far fairer to in the second place, an indication of what
both parties than the proposals in the would be allowable can, in all cases, be
Bill.
obtained either ,from the development
plan or from a certificate. These are
Mr. Bevins: I listened with great care means which are written into the Bill for
to what the hon. and learned Member for trying to ascertain the genuine market
Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said. I think value of any particular piece of land.
that the last tWO Amendments touch upon
a rather complicated subject, and I shall . Mr. Mitchison: At the time of the
address myself to VhM.in a moment. As notice to treat.
regards the first two Amendments, I
Mr. Bevins: Yes. May 1 now turn to
oUllht to say at once that ,I do not think the detail of subsection (2), which, as 1
that the hon. and learned Gentleman has say, deals with the. rather unusual
quite correctly conceived the purpose of
case-this Measure. As 11 followed it, his arguMr. Mitchison :'Before the hon. Gentlement was thM we ought to limit the
assumption of planning permissions to the man comes to the details. may I see if
purposes for which the acquiring authority I have understood him aright? It seems
wants the land. WhMever else that may to me to be exceedingly important. What
be, it is certainly not market value as we he is saying-he will correct me if I am
envisage it in ,the Bill or on any other . wrong-is that where planning permisbasis. I know that thehon. and learned sion has been granted, then, in assessing
159
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
(MR. MITCHlSON.]
the market value or the compensation
value at the date of the notice to treat.
one shall take into account not only the
planning permission which has actually
been granted but some other planning
permission which might have been
granted.
.11.15 a.m.
Mr. Bevins : Most certainly. It is clear
from the Bill that in certain cases it
would be permissible under Clause 3 to
have regard to the provisions of the
development plan itself. In other cases.
where the position may be obscure, either
·the one party or the other is entitled to
apply for a cenificate in order to determine what would 'have been a reasonable
planning permission for that piece of
land.
As I say, subsection (2) of Clause 2
deals with the rather unusual case where
'the acquiring authority has not got
planning permission for the development
it wants to cany out. The purpose of
the subsection is to produce the same
result as if the planning permission had
existed. It does this by saying that permission is to be assumed such as would
permit development in accordance with
'the proposals of the acquiring authority.
It may well happen, and it frequently
does, that the development which is to
be undertaken by the authority is for an
unremunerative purpose. It might be for
a school. a sewage works or. by the
Central Electricity Authority, for a
generating station. In that case, the
owner of the land is entitled by the terms
of the BilJ to invoke the benefits of
Clause 3 and so get the advantage of an
assumed planning permission based upon
the development plan. So if the land
is acquired for housing under a develop.
ment plan, then a permission for housing
would be assumed even though the land
was wanted for a quite different and, as
it were. less valuable purpose. That, I
think the hon. and learned Gentleman
win see, is in accord with the intention of
the Bill to ascertain .the real market value
of the land.
I know we do not see eye to eye upon
this, but the fact is that the hon. and
learned Gentleman is saying that the pur·
pose for which the acquiring authority
wants the land is the factor which should
enter into the valuation. My right hon.
. Planning Bill
160
and hon. Friends say that this is not the
case. What we are saying is that in
order to assess the true market value of
the land. one has to try to estimate what
that land would fetch in the open market.
having regard either to existing planning
permissions or to planning permissions
which could reasonably be expected.
The first two Amendments in the name
of the hon. and learned Gentleman and
his hon. Friends aim at excluding Clause
3 in cases covered by the existing su bsection. This result would be that the
owner could get the value of any planning permission which the local authority
had got for the proposed development.
On the other hand; if the acquiring autho'rity had not got planning permission for
the development. the owner could not
claim the advantage of Clause 3. The
example I have quoted is of land in a
residential area begin required for. let
us say. a school. In that case. the owner
would be deprived of the benefit of an
assumed planning permission for housing
though he obviously would have got such
a permission but for the fact that his
land was wanted by the local authority.
I am bound to remind the Committee
that the p~inciple of this Bill-this cannot be stressed too often-is that the
owner should receive the price he would
have secured in the open market but for
the compulsory acquisition. In many
cases. as I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite wiII appreciate. the Amendment
would deprive the owner of that value.
The issue raised by the second two
Amendments is rather a complicated one.
As I understand it. they elaborate the
assumption as to planning permission
required by this subsection so as to deal.
in as many words. only with the case in
which the acquiring authority's proposals
for development cover a range of uses.
That is the way I read the Clause.
Mr. Mitchison: They deal with any
case but those will not always be a
range.
Mr. Bevins: In particular. the effect of
the Amendments is to cover the circum~
stances where the land was being bought
for comprehensive development. As I
read them. the Amendments do this by
introducing words imported into this part
of the Bill from subsection (4) of Clause
3. which deals with areas of comprehensive development.
161
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
If '! refer ,hon, Members to the White
Paper at this point, it might be helpful.
Paragraph IS refers to Clause 3 and in it
we mention the problem which exists in
the case of areas of comprehensive developments. After referring to various
complications we say;
.. The solution set out in the Clause is that
in valuing the land account is to be taken of
the new uses envisaged for the area, but the
scheme itself and the proposed distribution of
uses is to be ignored. This means an assumption that whichever bit of the land is being
bought is being sold in the open market with
permission for one or other of the uses envisaged for the area-whichever would be reason'able in the circumstances; and that the circumstances are the existing circumstances, that is
to say. the layout is the old layout and the
rede-velopment scheme is not in the picture... ,.
'I'hat is an admirable attempt to put
"something in'herently diffioult into rela·
tively simple Engl;..h.
Under Clause 3 (4) planning permission is to be, assumed only for such cases
out of the range as might reasonably be
expected to have been permitted if there
were no scheme for comprehensive developments.
Tlhat is an important
"qualification. As J read it, the Amendments provide no such qualification and
they would apparently enable an owner
to claim ,the benefit of a permission not
just for the use which might reasonably
have been expected or permitted, but for
rhe uses ,with the ,highest value within
the range of uses proposed.
I hesitated to believe that this was the
intention in the mind of the 'hon. and
learned Gentleman but now I understand
from what ,he ,has said that this was the
case. As an example. an owner whose
land was to be developed as, say, part of
a ,housing estate, ,with houses and a local
shopping centre, as we read the amended
effect of the subsection, could apparently
claim nhat 'he was cntitled to assume that
planning permission would be given for
shops on the whole of his land and, therefore, to t,he full shopping value. In that
way, the Amendments would create the
very floating value which, as I understood
it, the Opposition were concerned to
eliminate on Clause I.
I apologise for talking at such length,
but the second two Amendments are
complicated. As regards the general con·
ception embodied in them, I would only
reiterate that this just does not accord
with the spirit or the intention of the Bill.
Planning Bill
162
Mr. Mitchison : May I ask one question
before the hon. Gentleman sits down? I
think the effect of the last two Amendments is correctly stated but, of course.
·it can easily be corrected if objection is
taken to it. However. when one looks
at page 5 we find there the Government's
intentions about comprehensive development. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us
what the difference is in paragraph (b)?
Let us take the area of comprehensive
development, how would we distinguish
,between the man who was going to have
a shop built on his piece of land and the
man who was not going to have a shop
built on it? I do not quite follow what
is the difference between the two cases
so perhaps he could tell us?
Mr. Bevins: If thehon. and learned
Gentleman will addtess 'himself to paragraph IS of the White Paper, I think he
will find that this is explained there as
clearly as it could possibly be explained.
Mr. Mitchison : It did not get into my
mind.
Mr. James MacColI : The trouble with
the Parliamentary Secretary is that he is
enchained by his own hypothesis. If this
Bill were as simple as he says, if all it was
doing was to say that we were going to
get rid of all the mumbo·jumbo and
anchor compensation to plain, honest,
British market value, which is something
that every decent man understands and
which is really the trend of ,his reply to
my hon. and learned Friend; if that is
all he is doing, why does it take him
sixteen Clauses and twenty-three pages to
do it? Why can he not have a oneClause Bill which states that the basis of
compensation for compulsory acquisition
will be market value? The answer, of
course, is that we are dealing with an
extremely artificial and hypothetical
world in which market value has a very
artificial. meaning which the Government,
for their own reasons. have attached to it.
If they had used a less obvious phrase
than" market value" the fraud which is
being committed on the unfortunate land·
owners would have been much more
obvious. It would have been much more
clear that compensation is not going to
be paid on anything like plain. honest,
British market value. In some cases, the
landowner will get much more; in others.
he will get much less. There will be a
great deal of discrimination between
163
Town and
COll/llr)'
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MAcCoLL.]
people, the difficulty being that we are
living in a complicated world in which,
,as the White Paper fairly says:
.. One big difference between the world or
1919 and of 1958, which must be taken account
of here, is the fact that we now have a comprehensive and weH-established system of
planning control."
Once we get into the difficulties which
spring from planning control, the whole
idea of ha~ing a simple market value
which everyone knows, or can find out,
disappears and we get into awful complications. I agree, and I am sure my
hon. and learned Friend will agree, that
the series of Amendments he has moved
are complicated and raise a fair number
of difficulties, but so does the Clause we
are seeking to amen,d, and it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to
address their attention to the problems
that are being created.
The Parliamentary Secretary made the
point against my hon. and learned Friend
that we were resurrecting floating values
by the attempt which is,made in the fourth
Amendment to deal with the difficulty,
which I think is a real one, that where in
any case an authority acquires white acre
and black acre, and for its own reasons
chooses to use white acre for an open
area swimming bath and black acre for a
shopping centre, considerable differences
and injustices would be created between
the owners of those two areas if they
received an entirely different baSis of compensation.
That does not arise inherently out of
what we are proposing. It arises in the
whole development of trying to apply a
simple conception like market value to
something which is very artificial and very
complicated. The proposals we are putting
forward here, put as shortly and simply
a, possible, amount to this: that where
a planning authority moves into an area
with certain proposals for development,
what happens in a great many cases is that
the area 'has been quite peacefully sleeping and no one has thought of development for a long time, that suddenly it
gets around that the authority is interested,
and immediately all the most extraordinary, romantic ideas appear for proposals
for development in order that, as a result,
it can be shown that there is a consider·
able potential development value attached
to the land.
Planning Bill
·t64
11.30 a.m.
The only commonsense answer to the
problem is to say, "We are acquiring
land for public development; it is reasonable to give 'the land owner the same
price which he would have got had he
done the development himself". There
is a certain amount of reasonableness
about that, but it immediately raises the
difficulty which my hon. and learned
Friend had in mind; that it might create
injustice between one landowner and
another. Therefore, the second proposal
is, rather than simply to attach a particular development to a particular piece of
land, to look at the whole picture and
apply a development value to the whole
area through the range of uses.
It is no answer for the Parliamentary
Secretary to taunt us by saying that we
are resurrecting floating value. We did
our best to deal with floating value in a
previous Amendment. We have been constructive about this matter and we have
recognised that once one starts with this
problem, one resurrects floating value. At
the beginning of our examination of the
Bill, we produced practicable proposals.
Of course, there are difficulties and it is
possible to critiCise our suggestions, but,
I repeat, the difficulties are inherent in the
problem. We produced a proposal to
deal with floating value, and if with their
majority the Government have killed
those proposals, they cannot for the rest
of the examination of ,the Bill say that our
proposals resurrect the problem of floating
value. Our answer is that we know that
we told the Government that, and it is
their fault and not ours.
Here is an attempt to produce a constructive contribution to the solution of
what is admittedly a very difficult problem. I regret that the Government have
not shown the slightest indication of any
flexibility or willingness to deal with the
problem along the lines we have sug·gested. My hon. and learned Friend,
who, I am inclined to think, is too peaceful and too tolerant a man, is always
willing ,to snatch at any straw if there is
any hope of getting the Government to
go one quarter .of the way with him.
Here he has been rebuffed by:ia flat re·
fusal, and I hope that he will steel himself
against his natural disposition towards
charity and invite us to, divide in favour
of the Amendment.
Planning Bill
166
9 DECEMBER 1958
Mr. Mitchison : I am very disappointed certain artificial assumptions solely and
at the way the Amendments have been entirely for the benefit of the selling
treated. I was shocked by appreciating owner. The effect and the intention of the
for lhe first time the fuB artificiality of Bill, as we heard from the Parliamentary
Clause 3, which we desire to exclude. Secretary today, is simply to complicate
It appears to be the purpose of the Bill matters, but to complicate them always
when assessing market values at the time in favour of the selling land owner.
of the notice to treat to give the owner of
I thought that what we were trying to
the land not merely the benefit of the do was to arrive at fair market value.
only planning permission which he could The Bill seems intended to provide not
conceivably have obtained at the time, fair market value, but the maximum
but the benefit of a number of other market value which can ·,be' extracted
assumptions about planning permission.
from an acquiring authority in favour of
In a case where he has planning per- the individual land owner. We learned
mission, the market value of that which earlier in -our proceedings that the type
is to be sold, which is land with a certain of people whom we had in mind, the
planning permission attached to it at that resident owner-occupiers. were likely to
time, is to be blown up by a number of be affected by the Bill only rarely. It
assumptions which appear to be intro- thus becomes increasingly clear that, like
duced solely for that purpose. We shaH other Measures of the Government, the
have to consider this more fully when
Bill is an artificial and complicated
get to Clause 3, but it applies here because attempt to put more money into the
the same principle is involved.
pockets of private landlords out of the
.
rr.
In some cases, fair market value will rates of local authorities. or the public
be in relation to the planning permission funds of Government Departments.
granted, with the land not likely to be
As we have proceeded. I have been
used for anything else. In that case, shocked by one development after
solely for the benefit of the selling land another. Perhaps we were foolish to
owner. we have to add something which accept the Government's good intentions
would not be assumed in .his favour if he and to suppose that they genuinely inwere selling to a private person, some- tended to arrive at a fair market value,
thing which ought not to be allowed arti- ,that is to say, fair as between the acquirficially to blow up the market value of ing authority and the selling owner.
the 'land which he is engaged in selling
The M"mister nf Housing and Local
compulsorily to the acquiring authority. Government and Minister for Welsh
In this case. exactly the same thing Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I do not
happeos. We have a case here where, want to dissuade the Opposition from
at the time of the notice to treat, the land dividing on the Amendment if they wish
owner has no planning permission and to do so, but there may be some genuine
knows perfectly well that if he were to misunderstanding about what the Clause
try to sell his land in the open market, does. My words may be helpful, not
he would get planning permission only cnly in relation to this set of Amendfor that which the local authority pro- ments, but to the rest of our consideraposes to do. Moreover, in 99 cases out tion of the Clause.
of 100 that which the 'local authority
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary
proposes to do will be something which Secretary was quite right in saying that
would probably have been done anyhow. the last two Amendments would restore
For instance. let us take the case of an element of tioating value which the
land on the fringe of a town and near a Government were seeking to exclude.
residential area inside the tnwn, the r am sure that that was inadvertent and
kind of fringe land which the Uthwatt that if the Opposition had drafted those
Committee had in mind in referring to two Amendments in a different way, (hey
global value. The odds are immensely could have prevented that from happenin favour of such land being developed ing. However. I hope that they will for.
for housing purposes, and if it is not give the Government if the Government
done by a local authority, it will be done address their minds to what is on the
.privately. Yet, we are to add to the Amendment Paper and not what might
natural and reasonable assumption, which have been on the Paper in different
it is perfectly easy to make in these cases, circumstances.
165
Town and COllntry
we
167
Town, and Country
HOUSE OF COMMOl'iS
Mr. Mitchison: Of course we forgive
the Government for that. We have much
more than that to forgive them. This is
a complicated matter, but I hope that
the right hon. Gentleman will recognise
that this is not the substance of what we
are discussing. If there is any question
of this sort, it can easily be put righ t
either by the Government accepting the
intention of the Amendment and undertaking to put it in appropriate language
on Report,,,qr by saying, as I now do,
that we will look at that small matter
again, and. if we find that there is any
substance in what has been said. that we
will correct it when we raise the matter
again on Report.
. Mr. Brooke: Earlier, the hon. and
learned Gentleman referred to Clause 3
and his Amendments would import a
piece of Clause 3. Without dwelling on
it, I must say that Clause.3 (4) provides
that planning pennission is to be assumed
only for such use within the ,whole range
as might reasonably have beem. expected
to be permitted if there were any scheme
for comprehensive development. Those
safeguarding words are not included in
the Amendments to Clause 2 and that is
why they would have the effect of importing floating value, which I am sure
is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman intends.
The main difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on all these matters is that the view
of the Government is that compensation
,should be the market value which the
land would have at the date of the notice
to treat if it were not being compulsorily
acquired, and that is the conception of
.market value which we are seeking to
.provide. while the Opposition consider
that it should be market value at ,the date
of the notice to treat, depreciated by the
fact that· the land is being compulsorily
.acquired. We have to resist that and
we do ",at see why no planning permission should be assumed which is incon'sistent with the intentions of the acquiring
authority. I have no doubt that on this
issue public opinion would hold the Government right and the Opposition wrong,
whatever might be said about the rest
of the Bill.
I agree that under this subsection we
are providing that planning permission
should be assumed for the course of
action which the acquiring authority has
Planning Bill
/68
in mind. It would crea te such gross
anomalies if we did not do that. It would
leave the compensation on a chancy basis.
It seems perfectly reasonable to assume
that if a local authority is buying land
for housing, even though at that moment
it does not have planning permission for
use of the land for housing, housing
value should be taken as the basis of
compensation, considering that it is for
the pUI'poses of housing that the land i.
being bought. If the Opposition will
think it out and probe more deeply, they
will see that absurd anomalies would
arise otheIWise.
The subsection starts by saying J~hat
where there is a planning permission. that
planning permission shall be taken into
a<:rount. Sometimes there may not be
planning permission. That may be because planning permission is to be sought
later. It may be because it is a matter
of Cr~wn' development, so that planning
permission is not required. We must
bear in mind throughout the Bill that
we are thinking in' terms of compulsory
acquisition, not only by local -authorities,
but by other bodies, such as Government Departments.
11.45 a.m.
Surely, it is fair and sensible that for
valua tion purposes the cases where there
is as yet no planning permission should
be treated exactly the same as cases where
there is permission. That is the sole
purpose of what.we are seeking to do
,here, and I do not think that it has any
of the sinister implications which the
Opposition are importing into it.
Mr. Mitchison: Would the right hon.
'Gentleman please help me? The Bill
starting by saying that we were to assume
tha t where we had planning permission.
,we should take it into account for the
purpose of assessing market value. This
is the case where there is no planning
permission. Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what part of the Bill we are
told to take into account the actual
planning permission which a local authority has acquired on a purchase of this
sort? I cannot find it, and it seems
to me rather illogical on the aspect which
the right hon. Gentleman is putting to us.
Mr. Brooke : It surely is the case that,
where land is to be bought and where
there is planning permission; the valuation of the land will be arrived at with
169
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
the benefit of that permission. That does
not seem to me to be any new conception
at all, once we have passed Clause 1. In
later Clauses we then have to make provision for the various cases in which
planning permission has not been given
or where the acquiring authority acquires
the land for some purpose which is outside and separate from that for which
planning permission had already been
given.
In all these cases, we are seeking first
to answer the question, "What is the
market value of this land? ", and if there
is uncertainty about the answer to that
question, because no planning permis·
sion exists at the moment, then we have
to ask that question in a rather more
complex form, such as "What would
this land fetch in the open market if it
were put up for sale with the benefit (,f
certain planning permission?" That is
the question to which we seek to get an
answer. In these Clauses, from Clause 2
onwards, we are trying to arrive at what
are the reasonable assumptions that
should be made a bout planning permission which the valuer should take into
account.
I think that, as we go through these
Clauses. it will be seen that the Government's line is quite consistent. and
that we are simply trying, not to import
any consideration which would add un·
fairly to the benefit of either the owner
or the acquiring authority. We are trying
to get as close as we can to a proper
conception of market value. When we
come to a later Clause, it will be seen
how we are seeking to exclude the element
of floating value which still exists, despite
the fact that, since the Uthwatt Committee reported, the 1947 Act and other legislation has nearly eliminated the concept
of floating value.
Planning Bill
170
Mr. Mitchison: 1 will leave it until
later.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I listened with some
interest to the right hon. Gentleman
explaining the purport of this Glause, but
I think he is rather confusing two things.
He is talking, on the one hand, about
market values, and on the other. about
a value based on restricted use. The right
hon. Gentleman has not explained what
he means by market value. This part
of the Clause seeks to establish a value
based upon planning permission already
given by the local authority, or, if it has
not been given. then upon certain assump·
tions as to what the land could be con·
sidered to be worth in respect of an
alternative use, but that will not give the
right hon. Gentleman the market value
at all.
I! he is looking for market value in
the open market, as he says, free from
all restrictions, he will find that the value
for the existing permitted use is not -the
market value. I am confirmed in that
opinion by the view of a very important
body which -has very considerable
experience of this problem-the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors.. This
body says, in a memorandum which I
think most hon. Members of the Committee have had, that this is a -very
important consideration in connection
with this Clause. The memorandum
says:
" It is widely believed-and there is a danger
that the legislation mIght be so construedthat the land would be valued for the specified
uses. and for those uses only, which are in
fact permitted or are assumed to be
permitted."
This is what the right hon. Gentleman
has been telling us will be the basis of
the compensation. Let me read from the
memorand urn a little further:
Mr, Mitchison: May I ask the right
hon. Gentleman one more question? Let
us assume that planning permission has
been granted for residential development
in an area shown in the development plan
as zoned for either industrial or residential
development. Does he or does he not
assume the industrial development permission, too?
.. But the market would not necessarily limit
its price to the value of the land for such
specific use3; the market would have regard
to all the potentialities and disabilities of the
land. but with the knowledge that certain
developments would definitely be permitted.
The Institution believes that this is the basis
on which • market value' is intended to be
assessed under the Bill. and tha\ the making
of certain specific assumptions does note"clude
from account other types of development to
which the market would have regard." .
Mr. Brooke: I think -the hon. and
learned Gentleman is now taking me some
way beyond the Amendment.
-
The Chainmin: The hon. Gentleman
is now gettirig too far into· Clause 3. I
have permitted some reference to it, but
171
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. CHAIRMAN.]
what he is now discussing is really outside this Amendment, and should come
up later on Clause 3.
Planning Bill
172
happen under this Bill is that there will
be private development of an estate, with
a requirement on the local authority to
make provision' for educational opportunities for children likely to be born in
the vicinity. Land will be acquired for
the school, assuming that the rest of the
land would be used for residential purposes. Immediately the local authority
takes that action, what does the estate
developer do? He develops the remaining
plots with the added attraction that there
are or will be educational opportunities
in the vicinity, and that the local
authority will provide the school.
Mr. Sparks: I am merely following on
what the right hon. Gentleman said, and
both he and others have gone ahead into
otber parts of Clause 2 and even into
Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman is
trying to tell us that he is determining
market value on the basis of planning
permission or on the basis of permitted
use; but that is not market value at all.
If he is trying to establish a market value,
be is not likely to do it by this particular
Immediately the local authority' says
method. I think the .right hon. Gentleman should explain to us what precisely that it will provide the school, and
he is proposing to do. As far as I can people can buy plots of that land for
gather from what he has said, he is -trying houses, the remaining plots immediately
to place a market value on a piece of . :go up in value. H, in fact, the local
land which carries with it restricted authority had not acquired the site for the
development-restricted to either existin@ school, the value of that land would bave
planning permission or to certain per.. depreciated. We all know, from the
actions of ;this Government since 1951.
mitted uses.
that -they have been slowing down educaMr. Broo1lie: If I may interrupt the tional development, and -the new towns
hon. Gentleman, may I say that we are are a good example of it. People will
here simply trying to get an answer to not purchase plots unless they can be
the question. " For what, if planning per· satisfied that reasonable educational
mission is given, could this land be sold facilities for their children will be there
if it were not being sold compulsorily? " before they go.
Mr. Sparks: If that is the basis of
Under this Bill, we are not only giving
what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the highest possible price which lhe landis a totally different thing. but he intro- .owner could have obtained, but, in doing
duced the question of market value and so. we are equally adding -to the value
assumed that that would be the market of the remaining land which he has for
value. In view of the fact that the right disposal in the normal way. This shows
hon. Gentleman has now retracted and that we are getting away from the general
agrees that this is not necessarily the principle on which planning has been
market value, I am prepared to leave the dependent in the past, which is that there
matter there.
should be some relationship between the
Mr. G. Lindgren : The last interjection use to ·which land is to be pu-t and the
of the Minister shows the complete incon- price which the local authority is to be
sistency of his Bill. The Minister says forced to pay. All those associated with
that the value is what one could sell this local authorities will appreciate that they
land for if it were not being compulsorily are to be forced to pay the highest price
purchased. and the Parliamentary Secre- which the owner of the ,land could get for
tary, in his first statement to the Com- that -land if sold in the open market, and,
mittee this morning, made reference to equally, when they do that, they will put
a schooL Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen up the price of the land remaining to the
opposite believe in private enterprise and public outside. I think this shows up the
in the private development of estates. fallacy of the whole attitude of the
That is a view to which they are entitled, Government to this Bill.
but it is one to which we object.
Question put, That the word "in"
One cannot develop residential property, stand part of the subsection:even under private enterprise, unless the
local authority undertakes responsibility
The Committee divided: Ayes 20,
.
for the provision of schools. What will Noes 15.
Town and
173
COUlJlry
9 DECEMBER 1958
174
Planning Bill
AYES
Division No. 3.]
1.lnitl, Lord
1nl"" 01. R. (TollteUl)
BroOM, Rt. Hon. HenT'
Cole, HOrman
<:orfield, Capt. F. V.
du Cann, E. D. L.
EllloC,A.W.(HI'cnlle :.Jpon Tyne,N.}
Errlngton, 81r Eric
Curden, Harald
Harrllon, Col .... H. (Eye)
HIli, Mre. E. (Wythenlhawe)
oIohnson, Or. Donald (<:arl;lle)
oIohnson, Eric '(BlecklllY)
Macphenon, Nlall (Dumfries)
Ble.nkimop, A.
BUIle" Mn. oIoyoe (Wood Green)
Filch, A. E. (Wlgan)
'"Ine, A.... (Edge Hili)
Llndgnln. C. 8.
M.oColI, ... E.
Molnnn, do
MllchllOn, C. R.
Morrb, Percy (8.enna, W.)
Probert, A. R.
MaiUand, Hon. Patrlek (L.nartd
Nicollon. N. (B'n'm'th, E." Chr'ch)
Page, R. C.
Powell, ... Enoch
Price, Dawld (Ealtlelgh)
Temple, oIohn M.
NOES
12 noon.
Mr. Julius Silvenu.u: I beg to move
in page 2. line 42 at ~he end to insert
.. being such development as any person other
than a public authority might reasonably be
expected to carry out ".
The Chairman: I suggest that this
Amendment should be ,taken with the
Amendment in page 4. line 7. at the end
to insert:
(;) In Ihis section .. public authority"
means a government department Or local
authority Or a public authority within the
meaning of the Act of 1919.
Mr. Silvenuao : The Minister said lhat
the Government's object in the Bill is
simply to determine what is a fair market
value. There is a fundamental difference
between the two sides of the Committee
on lhis issue. We do not consider Ihat
market value is necessarily fair. It has
frequently been decided by all sorts of
matters. often by the actions of the corn·
munity. As has been said. where a school
is built by a local authority it enhances
the value of the surrounding property,
and I could think of many such cases in
which market value is enhanced simply
by the activities of the local authority
and the expenditure of the local rate·
payers.
Even allowing for that, we believe that
this subsection is obscure and will create
many difficulties and arguments. The
Amendment deals with one of them. It
sets out that the development for wbich
planning permission is assumed should
be
.. such development as any person other than
a public authority might reasonably be
expected to carry out."
The simplest case is that where a local
authority sets out to build a housing
estate upon a piece of land where a
private individual could also build a
housing estate. In those circumstances it
27138
liilvlrman, oIullul (Alton)
6J1efl'ington. A. M.
6parb, ... A.
WilJdns, W. A.
WIllis, Eustace (EdInburgh, E.)
is fairly easy to assert lhal lhe same sort
of planning permission would be assumed
for the private person as for the local
authority. That is a case which comes
to mind, but there are all kinds of olher
cases. Supposing a local authority in·
tends to build a school; why should it
be assumed lhat a privale individual
would have the right 10 build anylhing
in thal area? . I heard lhe Parliamenlary
Secretary say that if the local aUlhority
buys land for lhe purpose of building a
school it will be assumed lhal lhe privale
developer had planning aUlhority to build
houses on the same site. No doubt, lhe
Parliamentary Secretary will correcl me
if I am wrong. I do not see why lhat
should be assumed.
If it is to be
assumed. could not the assumplion logically go further still? If we assume that
where a local authority can build a school
a private individual can build a house.
why should he not be allowed 10 build
shops? Why should that nol be assumed?
Why should it not be assumed lhat he
could build a factory?
We believe that there is no logical basis
to that and that planning restriclion
should be strictly limited 10 a development entirely parallel with lhat which
the local authority inlends. It should.
moreover, be something in lhe competence of the privale individual.
If
this is nol done there will be great disputes about what the subseclion means.
R is very far from clear and il certainly
has not been clarified lhis morning by
the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps they will say somelhing
more to indicate exactly what the sub·
section means and 10 show how far it
is limited and restricted. because I am
sure that there will be many legal arguments about it
The Amendment inlends to restricl lhe
sort of development for which planning
B
J 75
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SILVERMAN.]
permission can be assumed to planning
permission which would normally be
undertaken by a private individual
parallel with Ithat which the local authority were undenaking. I .think that is a
reasonable restriction. If the Amendment
is not accepted, I 'hope that at any rate
the Minister will tell us what the subsection means and how it wiJI operate.
Mr. N. MacphersoD rose-Mr. SilvennaD : On a point of order. I
want to know how this applies to
England.
Mr. MacpbersoD : Had the hon. Member been here he would have heard me
say earlier that ·there are same Clauses
which apply equally to England and to
Scotland and .that where there is a difference it will be explained. I hope that I
shall be ·able to tell him how it applies
to England as well as to Scotland.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I hope that the
hon. Member will also include Wales.
Mr. Macpberson : Certainly. I beg the
hon. Member's pardon. I include Wales,
too.
T.he Committee should appreciate that
this subsection is a residual subsection
and deals with the case where planning
permission for ,the use to which an
acquiring authority intend to put the land
is not in existence. That is the exception
and not the erule. Normally ,the acquiring
authority will have obtained planning
permission where necessary -before the
stage of the notice .to treat is reached. As
my right hon. Friend said, it is not always
necessary ,when a Government Departmertt acquires ,land for it to obtain plan.
ning permission.
The scope of this subsection, therefore,
is in any case limited. There are three
separate eases which may arise. apart
from this. First of all, planning permission may already exist. Secondly, as we
shall see whem we come to it, a cenificate
can be obtained as to the use that would
be permitted for the land. T,hirdly, the
land may be within a development plan
area for which the use has already been
determined. There are ,those three cases
in which already planning permission
w;U be known. and the only case with
which we are dealing here is that where
planning permission has not already been
given and is not in existence.
Planning. BiJ/
176
Mr. SHvermaD: Is there not the case
where planning permission has been
refused?
Mr. MacpbersoD: Yes.
Mr. Silvennan: There is then a fresh
application by the local authority upon
different terms, and that may be granted.
That surely does not come under any
of the headings.
Mr. MacpbersoD : There are ,two cases
of refusal of planning permission. One
is where the planning permission already
exists, in which case compensation would
be payable for refusal. The second is
where the planning permission for which
the application is made is refused outright, in which case it is the permitted
use which may be of lower value which
is the use for which planning permission
is in existence. It may be the existing
use; it may be some other planning per·
mission which is already in existence.
There are those three cases to take into
account, and I think the Committee
realises that the market would automatically take the permitted use into account
in arriving at the market value. The
hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said
a few moments ago that my right hon.
Friend was determining market value. It
is not my right hon. Friend who deter·
mines market value; it is the perm'ltted
uses and the market combined. The
market takes into account ·the existing
planning permission and any other plan,
ning permission which may be given.
Mr. Sparks: That is not correct. I said
that the right hon. Gentleman was trying
to give the Committee the impression that
the value based upon planning consent
and permitted use was the market value.
It is not the market value. The market
value is something rather different and
it would be a higher value than the
restricted use to which it is suggested
the land be put.
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member
will appreciate one point-and this is
the answer to ,the hon. Member for
Hayes and Harlinglon (Mr. Skeffington),
who asked a question and then, for a good
reason, had to leave the Committee. It
is a point which the hon. Member for
Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I think, fully
appreciates.
177
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
Planning Bill
178
The hon. Member for Hayes and
Harlington asked in what way the situalion has changed since the Ulhwatt
Report. The answer is that interests in
authority wishing to build a school? I
underslood Ihe Parliamentary Secretary
10 say earlier thai, if that was the intention of the local authority, planning per-
land are disposed of now in accordance
mission would be assumed for housing as
with planning permission.
At the
moment the sale as between two private
well as for a school. Is that the Government's interpretation of what the
individuals is based upon the existing use
provision means?
value plus the value of permitted developments. The amount of compensation
which would be payable if the land were
to be acquired by a local authority or
compulsorily in other ways is existing use
value plus fixed compensation.
With the removal of the restrictions it
will be full market value fOr the permitted uses but not the full market value
for any use whatever. I think the Committee appreciates that. When we are
talking of fair market value we are all
the time talking of fair market value for
the permitted uses.That is what we mean
by it. I hope that that has sufficiently
explained the point.
Mr. Sparks: It is not in the Clause or
in the Bill.
Mr. Macpherson: It is inherent in the
legislation.
Turning to t-he Amendment, some uses
are by their nature virtually restricted to
public a uthorities. The market would
assess the value of the planning permission accordingly. It would make no
difference. for example, whether a local
authority which wanted tp construct a
sewage farm already had planning permission for the sewage farm; the market
would still assess the value of that land
on the basis that a private person is not
likely to construct a sewage farm.
Mr. Lindgren: Because there is no
profit in it.
12.15 p.m.
Mr. Macpherson: We are concerned
with the value that the market will place
upon any particular land and the available permission. Of course, where a permitted use with higher value exists, that
is the market value and that is the value
which, quite naturally, the acquiring
authority has to pay. This Amendment,
on the other hand, would restrict that and
cut across the fundamental purpose of
the Bill.
Mr. Silverman : May I put to the hon.
Gentleman the simple example of a local
Mr. Macpherson: If the land to be
acquired is in an area already developed
for housing and for which housing use
can be presumed, it is surely not unreason·
able that housing value should be paid
for the land. That is the value which the
market would place upon it, assuming
that a private individual wanted to buy
that piece of land for housing, and planning permission would be given for
housing in respect of the land.
It is difficult to deal with any case
hypothetically. In any particular case,
it would be open to the individual whose
land was to be acquired to apply for a
certificate. If it were in a housing area,
it might well be that, in the normal case,
the permission indicated in the certificate
would, among..other rhings, be for housing
purposes. If that were so, it would be
reasonable that the housing value should
be paid. But that is not what comes into
this Amendment. The Amendment deals
with the case where a certificate has not
already been applied for. The use to
which the acquiring authority wishes to
put the land would be the use in respect
of which the value is paid under the sub·
section as it stands. The Opposition wish
to exclude value due to this use if the
local authority or acquiring authority
alone could undertake that particular
sort of development. But where that is
so, the additional value payable would
be negligible, because, if the local
authority alone could do that kind of
development, the market value for it
would, accordingly, be depressed.
The answer to the point is that, for this
reason, the Amendment is unnecessary;
the market itself would place no higher
value, for example, on development for
a sewage farm of agricultural land, let
us say-at any rate, very little higher
value than existing use value-because
nobody would b. prepared to buy the
land for that purpose or, indeed, for any
purpose other than the existing use. That
is why the Amendment is unnecessary,
I hope that I have made the point clear.
J79
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Lindgren : This is a very important
point. I wish to take the case of a local
authority concerned to provide a school.
The hon. Gentleman confirmed the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary
earlier that a piece of land in an area
required by a local authority for the
provision of a school would be assumed
to have value for housing development.
The local authority has a statutory duty
to provide education.
If it did not
acquire that site and it was developed
for housing, then the authority would
somewhere else have to provide a school
and, very likely, have to go to the length,
which is provided for by statute, of paying
for travelling facilities for children to and
from the school. How can one assume
that, on the basis of this Clause, the local
authority should pay the top price for
housing development in that area when
it is its statutory duty to provide a school?
'Mr. Macphe",on: But the market will
place a value on the land according ID
the planning permission given, for that
use which is allowed. All that the sub·
section does is to put lIbe individual land·
owner, in ~he event ,that no planning per·
mission already exists, in the sa'me posi·
tion as he would have been in if ,that
planning permission had already existed.
That is all it does. In other words, to
take the example of a sewage fa[tIll
again-'Mr. SUverrnan: Why concentra,te on
the sewage farm?
Mr. Lindgren: The school is more
difficult, is it not?
Mr. Macphe",on : IJt is a comparatively
simple case, and simple cases are always
belter I'or ~he pUl:pOses of illustration.
Mr. Sparks: It is an exception to the
general role.
Mr. Macphe",on : 'Let us suppose that
planning permission already existed or
the land was already in the development
pl.an for a sewage farnn. The markot
would take thM into acrount. There
might 'be some slight additional value,
but, obviously, there would not be very
much, for the reason -I gave, that nobody
else would construct a sewage farm. That
being so, if there is even a slight extra
value, t1here is no reason that a person
should be in any worse position merely
because the planning permission had nol
Planning Bill
180
already been given. Therefore, the planning permission for the use for whkh the
land is being acquired is to be assumed,
Surely, that is the right course. I do not
see thM, whother it be a sewage farm or
a school, it makes any difference in principle ,,*,atever.
Mr. Mitchison : I am much obliged to
the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He
has taken the example of a sewage farm
-not a very likely thing for a private
person to put on land. is he saying that
rheTe is no case where developmen~ which
a local au,thority, and only a loeal authori'ty, could earry out would be more
'.'aluable to the buyer than development
which a private person could earry out?
Mr. A. J. Irvine: He is resting his
whole case on that.
Mr. Mitchison : I want to make myself
clear; it will be my fault if I do not.
The hon. Gentleman may say, as regards
a sewage farm, that this is really unnecessary. I quite see that point. He may
say that in relation to any case where
the local authority development has
obviously a lower potential value than
what a private person could carry out.
But does he say that there is nO case
where the development which a local
authority, and only a local authority,'
could carry out is of higher value than
anything which a private developer could
carry out?
Mr. Macpherson: If I understand the
hon. and learned Gentleman aright, the
point is this. We are dealing with a case
where there is no planning permission in
existence at all. The hon. and learned
Member is saying that this land might
be used for some other purpose, in
theory, than the purpose of a sewage
farm, for which it is to be acquired.
Mr. Mitchison: Let us get away from
the sewage farm for a moment.
Mr. Lindgren: Concentrate on the
school.
Mr. Macphe",on: We will call it purpose" X " ; it might be used for purpose
" X" or it might be used for a number
of other purposes. No application has
been made for these other purposes.
There is no evidence that anybody wants
the land for those other purposes at the
time. Therefore, no additional value
181
Town and Counrry
9 DECEMBER 1958
attaches to the land because of a possible
potential use for some other purposes.
The only question which would have to
be decided is, What planning permission
is in existence for this land? There is
none, but the acquiring authority wants it
for a certain purpose and, therefore, that
purpose is the only purpose which should
be assumed.
Mr, Irvine: The Joint Under-Secretary
of State really cannot possibly regard this
issue as satisfactorily dealt with until he
has considered further and endeavoured
to answer the question put by my hon.
and learned Friend the Member for
Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), which surely
went right to the heart of the matter.
In this Amendment. we are directing our
minds to the case where development in
accordance with proposals of the acquiring authority has two features. The first
feature is that it is a development which
no private owner of an interest in land
would contemplate. The second feature
is that it is development wbich attracts
to the land-this is the point-an exceptional value.
Mr. MaephersoD: Will ,the hon. and
learned Gentleman allow me to ask one
question? It is important. Does he refer
to the plot of land actually being
acquired, or does he mean that value is
attracted to the surrounding land?
Mr. mine: It ",ttracts exceptional
<levelopment value ,to the ,land being
acquired. Thehon. Gentleman has,
throughout the argument, been conscious
of the force in the case we are putting.
Lt I may say so with respect, I ,have sufficient regard for the processes of ,his
mind to expeot that. T,hat, I think, was
why he had resort to the proposition that
the safeguard sought to be inserted by
this Amendment was unnecessary. Towards the end of ,his speech he emphasised ~hat, saying that it was unnecessary
beeause the acquiring authority's development of the land would not, in the
ordinary case, a ttract this exceptional
value. He will remember that tbe latter
paTII of his argument was directed to the
point that ~he Amendment was unnecessary in cases where the purposes for
which the local authority was acquiring
the land added value to 'the land, but,
when my hon. and learned Friend asked
why there should not be value attracted
by ,the development of the land for ~he
Planning Bill
182
purposes for which the local authority is
acquiring it, he ,was not able to answer.
As I ,understand it, a local authority
might wish to acquire land for ,the purpose of building a town hall, which is
something that trhe owner of an interest
in land would never contemplate doing
and which, I can well imagine, would
produce high development value. That
is right, is it not? There are other case~,
suoh as-Mr. MitehisoD:
station.
An
atomic
power
Mr. Irvine: -an atomic power station
or, possibly, a hght industrial use in an
area where t,he zonjng was residential. I
ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with ,this
question. There may be an answer, but
I do not at the moment see it. Surely,
,there may be cases in which the use for
whioh the acquiring authority is acquiring
the land is a use 'which attracts exceptional value to the land. We say that,
under the Bill as it stands, compensation
is to be paid comprising that use and that
value, and we say that ,that is wrong. It
is wrong because it could not be a use
contemplated by ~he private owner of the
interest.
In my view, we have a strong and
important point here. We are dealing,
after all, with the general planning
assumption before we come to the matters
in Clauses 3 and 4. I should e"pect the
Government, on reflection, frankly to
admit this proposition, that, if there can
be cases in which the development for
which a local authority is compulsorily
acquiring land attracts special development value, and, at the same time, it is
development which an individual owner
of the interest would not and could not
contemplate, the increment should not be
comprised in the compensation to be paid.
12.30 p.m.
What really needs to be dealt with III
this controversy is the proposition which
I ·understood the Joint Under-Secretary
at one stage of his argument to be insisting upon. We are not talking in practical
terms because the proposition the hon.
Gentleman relies upon is that local authorities will not acquire land for development which will attract exceptional value
to the land.
Mr. Grabam Page: Before my hon.
Friend answers, there was a question put
183
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. PAGE.]
by the hon. and learned Gentleman to
which I have not yet heard the answer
and I am left in some confusion about the
1Jroper construction of this Clause and
what the Amendment would do. It is
this question: If the local authority proposes to acquire the property for the
purpose of a school, how is it that this can
be valued on lhe basis of use for housing?
My hon. Friend said this, but I cannot
find it anywhere else in the Bill.
This Clause deals merely, as I understand it, with the case where no planning
'permission has been given, and where no
pla,nning permission has been given we
are merely to look at the proposals of
the acquiring authority, and at nothing
else, :by the wording of this Clause. So
if the acquiring authority wishes to use
the property for the purpose of a school,
we must only va'lue it for that purpose.
It is possible, however, for an independent
person to build a school and it may have
some value for that purpose. I have
looked through the other Clauses and I
cannot find where we could value land
tor any other purpose. It is true that in
the other Clauses we can value it for
other purposes if it is under a comprehensive development scheme. We can
value it for other ,purposes if there is a
current development plan. but supposing
there is no current development plan. supposing it is still in draft form, then we
are not to look at anything other than
the purpose for which the acquiring
authority requires the land. as I read
this Clause.
Mr. Sparks: May I put one other point
to the Joint Under.Secretary before he
replies? I think he was over-simplifying
his problem. He referred to a pieee of
land to be used as a sewage farm, and
the arguments he was putting forward
seemed to me to be based on the assumption that the sewage farm would be placed
in the middle of Dartmoor or the middle
of the Yorkshire moors. I cannot con·
ceive of the problem being quite as easy
as he assumed it to be, because it may
well be that the sewage farm would have
to be placed on a piece of land that could
be used for industrial purposes. Indeed.
in some of the development plans of the
planning authorities there probably would
be proposals for that to take place. When
the hon. Gentleman says that the compensation to be paid by the local authority
Plal/fliflg BiJI
184
for acqumng land for a sewage farm
would be based on the value of that piece
of land for sewage works, he is wrong in
many respects. Here and there perhaps
he would be right, depending on the site
of the land, but there would be many
cases where this would not apply.
As I understand the intention of the
Minister, the land in this case would be
sold not for its value to the local authority
as a sewage farm but at a price based
upon certain permitted industrial uses.
If it was held to be a suitable piece of
land for industrial development. it might
or might not be designated in the development plan for industrial use. Let us take,
for instance. the fringes of new towns
where there is a lot of open land. It
would be incorrect to say that if the use
of that land was taken for the purpose
of a sewage farm, it would have a very
low value. That would not be so, because
the value of all surrounding land whieh is
potentially-Mr. Lindgren: Not too near it.
Mr. Sparks: Not too near it, but on the
fringes of the new town there is land with
high development values since expansion
of the new town might take place. Therefore, it would not be correct to give the
Committee the impression, perhaps unconsciously, that if a local authority was
acquiring a piece of land for a sewage
farm, no one else would want it. That
is true for that purpose. but somebody
else might want it for another valuable
purpose. Therefore, it does not follow
that the acquisition by a local authority
of a piece of land for putting up a sewage
farm would produce a very low value for
compensation purposes. In fact. it might
produce a very high compensation value,
based upon many other considerations
which the hon. Gentleman has not brought
into the picture.
Mr. Macpherson: May I attempt to
clarify this point? I started by saying
that this is really a residual subsection.
It only operates where there is no other
planning permission available or extant.
In the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of putting a sewage farm in the
middle of an industrial area, the chances
are that an application would be made
for a certificate for the permitted use of
that land. This operales only where there
is no certificate in existence, where the
185
Town and Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
land is not scheduled in a development
plan and where there is no permitted use
in existence.
Mr. Irvine : What justifies the observation of the hon. Gentleman that this
applies where there is no permitted use
in existence? Where is that in the
Clause? I do not see it anywhere.. The
only assumption in the Cia use is that
there will be permission for the purposes
for which the local authority is acquiring
the land.
Mr. Macpherson : The Clause states :
" . . . it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted . . . "
Mr. Irvine: For that purpose.
Mr. Macpherson: In that case it is
assumed because something has to be
assumed in order to put the person who
owns the land in the same position as if
the planning permission had already been
given for that use. That is why it has
to be assumed. and it is laid down in
the Bill that it shall be assumed.
Mr. (rvine: This general assumption
under Clause 2 can clearly exist at the
same time as a planning permission under
Clause 3. namely. planning permission
for purposes marked in the development
plan.
Mr. Macpherson: But it would not
have to come into operation because the
planning permission already existed. Sub.
section (I) makes the position clear. It
states :
.. For the purpose of assessing compensation
in respect of a compulsory acquisition to which
the preceding section applies, such of the
assumptions mentioned in this and the next
following section as are applieable LO the
relevant land or any part thereof shall be made
in ascertaining the value of the relevant
imerest."
If there are planning permissions in
existence. the market will take those into
account. Therefore. the additional interest that comes along from the acquiring
authority. if it is within those permissions
will already have been taken into account.
If it is not within those limits then it is
taken into account over and above. but
if it is something which only the acquiring
authority. or any public authority. would
be likely to develop. and not an interest
which any priva te person would be likely
to develop. the additional value that
would be added is negligible.
PJanni"g Bill
186
Mr. Irvine: Why is it negligible?
Mr. Macpherson: I think what the hon.
Gentleman the Member for Liverpool.
Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has in mind is
the existing amount that would be payable by way of development value. It
does not follow. however. that any more
value would be attracted to the land
beeause the local authority says it wants
it for a particular use.
Mr. Sparks: Oh, yes. it does.
Mr. Willis: It does in practice.
Mr. Macpherson: It is only the use it
has. and the market value which the
market will place upon that additional
planning permission which is to be taken
into account.
My hon. Friend tbe
Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right.
I was not saying. nor was my hon. Friend
saying. that if an authority wants a piece
of land for a school, housing permission
has to be assumed. I was not saying
anything of thc kind.
Mr. Silverman : He did.
Mr. Macpherson : No. I have a note of
what my hon. Friend said. He said that
the owner of the land in that case is
entitled to invoke Clause 3 and so get
the benefit of an assumed planning per.
mission based on the development plan.
Mr. Page: May I interrupt my hon.
Friend? If it is invoking Clause 3, surely
that is only in the comprehensive case.
Would he not be more correct in saying,
involving Clause 4 and getting a
certificate? If that is the case should we
not in subsection (2) of Clause 2 say that
the subsection should be subject to any
certificate obtained under Clause 4?
Mr. Macpherson: That is one of the
assumptions to be made in the course of
"this and the next following section".
so that is covered by subsection (I). We
have gone into this closely and I think
hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand that there would be no extra value
added in the eyes of the market because
a local authority wanted a piece of land
for a special purpose for which nobody
else wanted it. The question is. what are
the purposes for which this land can be
used and. of course. what is the demand
for the land? It is in accordance with
the demand for the land also that the
market will fix the price. If there is no
187
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MACPHERSON.j
demand for the land other than for
existing use, or possibly no demand for
the land at all except for the desire of
the local authority to acquire it, then the
additional value which would attach, if
any, is negligible.
.
Mr. Mitchison : I do not think it is the
Opposition ,tha t is failing to understand.
but the hon. Gentleman. Let me try to
put it to him. I entreat the hon. Gentleman to get out of .the sewage. It is messy
stuff and of a comparatively low value.
Let us consider the case where an acquir.
ing authority, which is not necessarily a
local authority, is getting a piece of land
for something which will enhance the
value of ,the land very much. When I
said an atomic energy station, I was not
joking or being frivolous. It is just that
kind of case I have in mind.
Let us suppose there is an acquiring
authority getting a piece. of land in the
middle of noWhere in particular, which
I understand is the most desirable site
for an atomic energy station. It then
proceeds to erect one.
What is the
market value of that piece of land and
how do the eyes of ,the market-things I
have never met before~regard it? That
is the question we are really considering,
and what we seck to do in .this Amend·
ment is to cut out uses to which only an
acquiring authority can put the land. It
is true that hypothetically a private indi·
vidual could probably put up an atomic
energy station, but I doubt that. Let us
assume ,for the purposes of this argument that there is such control of the
prod uction of a tomic energy, which I do
not remember for the moment, that only
an acquiring authority could put up that
structure on the site in question.
12.45 p.m.
I have been continually asked to read
the White Paper carefully. In paragraph
29, referring to Clause 7, it says that the
two subsections
.. originated from a rule of valuation which.
although not forming part of the rules under
the 1919 Act, has been referred to in decided
cases on many occasions both before and
since those rules were enacted. Broadly, the
rule is that no enhancement in value. which
is due to the scheme for which the land is
being acquired, is to be laken into account."
I accept .that statement of the law in
England. I do not know what the Scots
law on this subject is. I dare say that
it also applies in Scotland, and I should
be surprised if it did not.
Planning Bill
188
. If that is ,the principle and not merely
a rule which has been constantly applied.
I do not see why the Government are
resisting the Amendment. It will make
no difference whatever to the sewage
works. which will be covered by one of
'the other Clauses. With great respect ,to
the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page),
to whose speeches on these matters I
always listen with aHention and respect.
I do not think that there is a residual
case. If it is not covered by the development plan under Clause 3, it will be
covered by a certificate under Clause 4.
Mr. Page indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: I think that the hon.
Member will find ,that it covers the case
where there is no development plan.
.Jt is, therefore, something additional
to the uses which are to be a1I0wed under
either Clause 3 or Clause 4. I agree that
for very many ,works this will not make
any difference. In some cases, such as a
town hall or school, it may be arguable
,whether it will make any difference.
However, when one gets out of the range
of local authority projects and into the
range of Government Departmen Is as
acquiring authorities, there may be cases
where this provision will make a great
deal of difference. ,We want to be fair
even to Government Departments. .Is it
fair in a case where land is being
acquired in the open countryside ~or
building some very large and expensive
research works, or something like an
atomic energy station, which will enhance
the value of ,the land enormously. that
that should be taken into account?
Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and
learned Gentleman forgets that we are
returning to ·the Acquisition of Land
(Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.
so ,that Rule 3 will apply as it did before
-with some modifications.
Mr. Mitchison: I am glad that it will,
but it has to be remembered that we are
adding to the 1919 Act a number of
expressed ,words telling us ,to do certain
,things. The rule applied to a different
state of ,the law when ,there was no such
thing as this enactment in existence, and
that rule may not apply in view of the
expressed instructions now ,to do something else. It may be said that notwithstanding that the rule would have applied
but for an expressed provision. there is an
189
Town a/Id Country
9 DECEMBER 1958
expressed provision which tells us to take
into account in valuing a bit of moorland
itsJ?otenlial use as, say, an a,tomic energy
statIon.
That is the difficulty, and it is no good
taking a rule which applied to a dillerent
set o~ circumstances in 1919 and saying
that Lt will apply here when there is an
express provision saying that something
else has to be done. I shall not argue
that point with the hon. Gentleman. He
is at perfect liberty to express a doubt
about it. There may be some principle
in Scottish law whereby when one says
something, one does not mean it. However, there is no such provision in
England. It being clear that there is an
expressed injunction, .the question is
whether it is intended by the Government
to have the ellect which it seems it will
have,
Mr. Macpberson : The hon. and learned
Gentleman should understand this. The
mere adding of a planning permission
cannot add to the value unless it adds to
the marketability of the land. It is the
market value of the land that counts. It
there is only one potential buyer, it cannot
add to the value because it does not add
to the market value.
Mr. Mitcbison: Suppose that it is
publicly known that a piece of moorland
is to be used for an atomic energy project and is to be acquired by the Government for that purpose; does the hon.
Gentleman tell me that the value of that
piece of moorland will not appreciate in
relation to other pieces of similar moorland which it is not intended should be so
used? Is not that the question which we
are considering?
I agree that this subsection as it stands
will not affect a large number of cases. In
the vast majority of cases planning permission will have been obtained beforehand. I accept the proposition that we
are dealing with a small number of cases.
What we are seeking to provide is in
relation to an even smaller group of
cases. No doubt many of them will be
sewage farms. open spaces and things of
that sort where the Amendment would
make no difference and where it would
be left to the provisions under Clauses
3 and 4. However, there will be some
cases, and monstrously unfair cases,
where the refusal of the Amendment will,
to put it at its lowest. leave the issue open
to considerable doubt.
Planning Bill
190
Do the Government intend that compensation should be given On the footing
of development which only a public
authority could undertake? If they do,
why do they intend it and how is that
reconcilable in principle with the rest of
the Bill and with the rule of law which
illustrates the principle which has been
applied to these cases in the past and
which I believe the Government intend
to apply here?
The Government have many vices, and
one of them, and the worst, is a persistent
obstinacy in small mallers. I have had
to deal with the right hon. Gentleman
over this sort of thing before. He refuses
to accept a perfectly reasonable and
sensible Amendment put in Commillee.
He goes away and later inserts such a
provision having obstinately said that he
would do no such thing. It may be
that he will do that in this case. I
entreat the Government to reconsider this
maller and to tell us that they accept
in principle what we are saying and that
on Report they will introduce a suitable
Amendment or, if they do not intend to
do that, to explain the effect of the Clause
in relation to the construction of a large
and expensive works of some sort by a
Government Department on undeveloped
land.
Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member for
Crosby (Mr. Page) was completely right
in his views. If there is no planning
permission for a piece of land, a planning
permission has to be assumed. The
assumption of that planning permission
may be totally different from the use
of the land as a sewage farm. Tt may be
assumed that the land is to be used for
a school or for residential, industrial or
other purposes. Whatever the assumption, it is upon that use that the corn·
pensation figure will be based, even
though the local authority acquires the
land to preserve it as an open space or
to use it as a sewage farm.
The basis of compensation is to be
decided on whether anybody wants to buy
the land. If the land were in the middle
of Dartmoor or the Yorkshire Moors. I
do nof suppose that anyone would want
to buy it. However, that is but a small
part of the picture, and we have to be
concerned with the picture as a whole.
As a whole, it is somewhat different from
that which has been painted by the Government. It may well be that the assumed
191
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SPARKS.]
planning permission may cost a local
authority very dearly in cases where there
are plenty of people wanting to buy the
land for the assumed planning use and
where the local authority would have to
pay very heavily if it wanted to buy
it for use as a sewage farm or as an
open space.
This is a very complicated Bill. but
the Amendment is clear in declaring that
the value shall be based on a reasonable
use by any person other than a local
authority. There is not a great deal of
difference between the two. I should have
preferred local authority use made the
basis of compensation, but if we can tie
it down to saying that compensation shall
be based on reasonable alternative use,
we shall be getting nearer a fair price.
Mr. Brooke : The Opposition may have
the impression that if a local authority
wanted to build a ,town .hall, or ,if a public
authority wanted to build an atomic
power station, the Clause left unamended
would give a general industrial planning
permission to the land involved. That is
not so. Unamended, ,the Clause will
simply give iliat specific planning permission exactly identioal with what the local
authority ,is buying the land for. Therefore. the price of the land will not rise
ste"Ply because an owner of a piece of
moorland will not have JIlany people in
the market seeking sites for atomic power
stations.
Mr. Silverman: If that is so, why do
the Government not accept .the Amendment? If the right hon. Gentleman's contention is correct. all that the Amendment
does it to put the position, as the Minister
has explained it, beyond doubt.
Planning Bill
192
Mr, Brooke : What we are trying to do
is to put every case where ,there is no
planning permission for the local authority scheme on exactly the same basis as
where there is such planning permission.
We are certainly not trying to widen it,
and I must ask ,the Committee to accept
that the Clause does not widen it, to
general planning permission.
Mr. Mitcbison : The right hon. Gentleman has still not understood what we
want. Let him devote his mind, perhaps
after one o'clock, to atomic power
stations. Is it fair that a man should get
a substantial benefit in the value of his
land from .the fact that an atomic power
station is to ·be built -there? It must make
a difference to ·the market value of the
land. The moment it becomes known that
it is contemplated that such a station
is to be built, that piece of waste land will
become much more valuable because it
will be known that a higher price, on any
footing. is to be extracted from a Government Department than would be available if the .land .were sold for some other
purpose, say, preserving game.
The question is whether it is right and
in accordance with the rule which has
been mentioned that a wholly exceptional
price should be given for no other reason
than the charaoter of the scheme which
the Government are ,to undertake. It is
completely
irreconcilable with -the
expressed intention of the Government as
set out in the paragraph of ·the White
Paper which J quoted.
I1 being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN
adjourned the Committee, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Committee adjourned until Thursday,
IIlh December, 01 halt-past Ten o'clock,
193
Town and Counlry
9 DECEMBER 1958
Planning Bill
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:
Grimston, Sir R. (Chairman)
Balniel, Lord
Bevins, Mr.
Biggs-Davison, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.
Brooke, Mr.
Butler, Mrs.
Cole, Mr.
Corfield, Mr.
du Cann, Mr.
ElIiott, Mr.
Errington, Sir E.
Fitch, Mr.
Gibson, Mr.
Gurden, Mr.
Harrison, Colonel
Hill, Mrs.
Holt, Mr.
HowelI, Mr. D.
Irvine, Mr. A. J.
Johnson, Dr. D.
Johnson, Mr. E.
Lindgren, Mr.
MacColl, Mr.
Mclnnes, Mr.
Macpherson, Mr. N.
Maitland, Mr. Patrick
Mitchison, Mr.
Morris. Mr. P.
Nicolson, Mr. N.
Page, Mr.
PowelI, Mr.
Price, Mr. D.
Probert, Mr.
Ramsden, Mr.
Silverman, Mr. J.
Skeffington, Mr.
Sparks, Mr.
Temple, Mr.
Wilkins, Mr.
Willis, Mr.
194
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
STANDING COMMITTEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
THURSDAY,
11th DECEMBER, 1958
Fifth Sitting
CONTENTS
CLAUSE 2, under consideration when the Committee
adjourned till Tuesday, J6th December, 1958, at
half-past Ten o'clock.
LONDON
HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
NINEPENCB NBT
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of
Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are
requested to give, notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied, but any corrections which Members
desire in the bound volumes should be marked in this Report.
The copy of the Report containing such corrections must be
returned to the Editor's room, House of CommonsJI
not later than
Tuesday, 16th December, 1958
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY
FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF
THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDrNGS
IN STANDING COMMlTrnES.
PRfNTED AND PUBLISHED BY HER MAJESl Y'S STATlUNERY OFFICE
To be purchased from
York House, Kingsway, LONDON, w.c.2
423 Oxford Street, LONDON, w.l
13a Castle Street. EDINBURGH, 2
109 St; Mary Street, CARDlFF
39 King Street, MANCHESTER, 2
Tower Lane, BRISTOL, 1
80 Chichester Street. BELFASI
2 Edmund Street, BlRM1NGHAM. 3
or from any Bookseller
PRINTBD IN GREAT
.RITA1N
195
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
BILL
STANDING COMMITIEE D
OFFICIAL REPORT
Thursday. 1l th December. 1958
•
[Sir ROBERT GRlMSTON in the Chair)
10.30 a.m.
.
Tbe Minister of Housing aod Local
Government and Minister for Welsb
Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): 'With your
permission. Sir Robert. I should like to
say something about the future sittings
of the Committee. The Committee has
a great deal of work to do, and after the
Christmas Recess it will be necessary for
the Government to ask that the Committee should have extra sittings beyond
two a week. upon which basis we are
at present proceeding. On the other
hand. the last thing I want to do is to
spoil anybody's well-earned Christmas
Recess. I therefore propose that after
next Tuesday's sittings we should not sit
on Thursday of next week, the day when
the House adjourns for the Christmas
Recess, nor that the Committee should
have more than one sitting in the week
we resume. In other words, when the
Committee adjourns at one o'clock on
Tuesday next, we propose that it should
not meet· again until the Thursday
morning of the week in which the House
resumes. After that, we shall need to
press on with the Bill, which I agree
needs careful discussion.
I hope that this general plan will be
acceptable, bearing in mind that the
Government wish to be entirely reason·
able over the last week of term and the
first week of next term, but clearly we
must get the Bill through Committee
within a reasonable time.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison : We on this side
welcome with some gratitude the Government's reasonable attitude in relation to
Christmas and to resume Committee
sittings on the Thursday after the House
resumes. But we ·think that there the
season of reason ends. and if the Govern·
ment propose to ask for further sittings
a week later we shall oppose their pro·
posal when the time romes.
Tbe Chairman: I take it that the
Minister will move the necessary Motion
27148
Planning Bill
196
not to sit on Thursday at the beginning
of next Tuesday's sitting?
Mr. Brooke: Yes. Sir Robett. 1 pro·
pose to move the necessary Motion on
Tuesday morning.
Clause 2.-(GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO
PLANNING PERMISSION.)
Amendment proposed [9th December],
In page 2, line 42, at end, insert:
"being such development as any person other
than a public authority might reasonably be
expected to carry out:'-[Mr. J. Silverman.J
Question again proposed.
Mr. Mitchison: I have read my own
wise words, and I do not think that I can
add to their wisdom. I hope, however,
that the Minister shares my views about
their wisdom and will have some con·
cession to add.
Mr. Brooke: I, too, in common with,
I think, most other hon. Members, have
read over what was said in the Committee
two days ago.
First, 1 must rebut the charge of the
hon. and learned Member for Kettering
(Mc. Mitchison) that the Government are
being obstinate in small matters. We
recognise that this is a difficult Bill. The
Government are anxious to see whether
there are any points at which the Bill
can be improved. and discussions in Cornntittee may well throw up ideas for
possible improvement, even though this
Amendment is not acceptable.
I must say in all honesty that the
Amendment is not regarded by the Government as an improvement to the Bill.
1 have discussed it with my hon. Friend
the Joint Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland. The Scottish position is similar
to the English position, and for reasons
which 1 will give we cannot advise the
Committee to accept the Amendment.
When we have completed our discussions on the Amendments to Clause 2
and on the Question, That the Clause
stand part of the Bill, I think that we
should consider the matter between now
and the Report stage to see whether any
of the suggestions which have been made
could be so shaped as to afford an improvement of the BilL I am not saying
that I am satisfied that Clause 2 needs
amending, but I wish to make perfectly
clear that the Government are not taking
the attitude that the precise words of
A2
197
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BROOKE.]
every Clause are necessarily the hest
which can be arrived at after careful consideration in Committee or on Report.
I should now like to address myself to
the question which is before us, namely,
whether the Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. The obvious practical
objection to the Amendment is that if
planning permission has been obtained
at the date of notice to treat, this pennission will, to quote the words of the 1947
Act,
.. enure for the benefit of the land and of all
persons for the time being interested therein",
There is no qualification there such as
the Amendment proposes for cases where
planning permission has not been
obtained. Indeed, no qualification could
be imported at that point without entirely
upsetting the basis of transactions in the
market.
,What ,tlhe Opposition is asking the
Committee to do is, while leaving things
as they are where planning permission
has !been obtained, to introduce the qualification which the Amendment suggests,
in the case where planning pennission
has not been obtained. The effect of
.that would Ibe to create a difference in
treatment !based simply and solely On the
fact~hat in the one case planning permission 'has not yet !been obtained but in the
other has heen obtained.
That is a chancy matter. Lt is a matter of <timing and of the exact pemnission
that exists at the date of notice -to treat.
It would be anomalous and unjust that
the position of uhe owner of <the land
should be made different by statute
according to the chance ,whether permission 'has 'been obtained, say, a week before or a week after the date of notice to
treat.
ThM is the practical opposition to
accepting the Amendment. It would
create unfairness and J do not believe
that 'hon. Members on either side wish
to create fresh anomalies but would
rather see the Bill getting rid of the
anomalies that already exist.
Much of the discussion hitherto has
concentrated not on that aspect, but rather
on the value which planning permission will give to the land. The value
of the planning pennission depends
largely on the supply and demand for
,tha t type of development. As my hon.
Planning Bill
198
Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said, if
no-one except the acquiring authority is
likely to carry out that sort of development, then the value of the planning permission that will be assumed under <the
subsection would probably be negligible.
I do not say that in all cases it would be
none at 'all. [HON. MEMBERS; .. Hear,
,hear ".] 'I am being penfectly frank with
the Committee. I do not say that it
would be a nil llIffiount, !but if ot is unlikely that anybody else would wish to
develop ,the land for a particular "Purpose, dearly the increment of w.lue that
the planning permission can give must ,be
very small. That is to say, if an acquiring authority wants to do something
which ,it is not likely anyone else would
want to do, the dear forecast is that
under the Clause as it stands no significant increase in value will be created.
1 appreciate ~at what ,the Opposition
is seeking to do by the Amendment is to
eliminate any increase, In my view
that would Ibe unfair and it would certainly create this inexcusable anomaly
between the compensation payable if
planningpennission 'had come through
by that <time or not.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary also called the attention of the Committee last Tuesday to the fact that we
must not overlook Rule 3 of the 1919
Act Rules. This Bill is not setting aside
,those Rules but is making them operative once again for these transactions,
I must, therefore, advise the Committee
,that there is no significant danger of
authorities being required to 'Pay too
much if the subseotion is passed
unamended. It would be unfair to seek
to guard against that danger in the way
the Amendment proposes, because, as I
say, it would create the other anomaly.
Before I sit down, I should like to
refer back to Tuesday. We then ranged
over sewage works. schools and atomic
power stations. but I think that it was
schools and atomic power stations upon
which the Opposition sought mostly to
concentrate. If we were to deal in precise
terms with the planning permission that
would be assumed for a school that was
to be built, we might trespass on following
Clauses.
I must not go into those in detail,
but in reply to what hon. Members have
said, because there seemed to be some
dubiety about it, I should explain that
I
199
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
if the land which is being bought for a
school is allocated to housing in the
development plan. then 'housing value
will be 'Paid for that land because the
presumption will be that ·the owner could
have sold it for housing purposes if the
authority did ·not seek to acquire it compulsorily. If the land is not shown for
development in the development plan, or
if it is defined in the development plan
as a school site, later Clauses of the Bill
as it stands provide that the owner can
ask for a certificate as to w,hat would
have been permitted if the authority had
not stepped m. Agam, the presumption
is that the land could have been sold
for that development if Ithe certificate
indicated any development.
. Is Wl'11 be d'lScussed'ID
All these pOIn
further Ame~dments from Clause 3
on:vards , but It see?led to me that as the
pomt .has been raised In the dISCUSSion
on ~hl~ Amendment It mIght have some
c1anfymg effect ~f I put on record o.:hat
woul~ 'happe? With regard to school sIles.
a pomt which. :has caused some ,hon.
Members opposite concern. Having said
that and having also said that we are
prepared to study the Clause further in
the light of w.hat ,has been said on the
Amendments, I must advise the Com?,ittee that it :vould create a new anomaly
m the Bdl If we were to accept this
Amendment.
10.45 a.m.
Mr. MitchisoD: May I ask the right
hon. Gentleman one question before he
sits down? He skated over the sewage
farm and dealt with the school but
omitted the atomic energy station. That
is the kind of case thM troubles me most.
He did say. if I understood ,him correctly,
that it would make no difference. Is it
his considered advice to the OJrnmittee
that the market value of a piece of land
in. say, a remote agricultural county
would not be affected by the prospect
of an atomic energy station being put on
it? There would be no actual planning
permission in ,those cases, I believe. but
it would have .to be assumed for the
purposes of this Clause. ,Would that
assumption make no difference?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned
Member is not quite right. Planning
permission has to be given. No public
authority can put up an atomic power
station \1I.here it wishes. But in answer
to the hon. and learned Member. what
Planning Bill
200
I was saying was that the planning permission that would be assumed under'
this subsection as it stands would make
no significant difference to the value of
the land if nobody except the public
authority intending to acquire it for
atomic energy purposes or some similar
purpose was likely to wish to build an
atomic energy station there.
That
would presumably be the normal situation, because the number of potential
builders of atomic power stations is very
limited; and it is not true-I realise
that some ,hon. Membe~ are anxious
about .thls-that the passmg of lhls subsection as it stands would import into
the value of ,the site in such a case the
value of a general planning permission
for industrial development.
Mr, MitchisoD: On this side of the
Committee we cannot at present agree
with the right hon. Gentleman on the
last point ,he put. but since it apparently
takes two competing atomic power
stations to make him change his mind,
I think perhaps we had better divide.
Mr. J. A. Sparkli: The right hon.
Gentleman referred to building atomic
power stations. say. in ·the middle of the
Yorkshire moors. and if we are dealing
with that as an initial point there may
be some substance in what he has said.
But the mere fact that permission IS
given to build an atomic power station
on that site, even though the cost of
compensa.tion to the authority would be
smaIl. automatically appreciates the
value of ,the land surrounding ,the atomic
power station and would set in train a
series of transactions over a period of
time. For instance, people would have
to work in the atomic power station and
would need to live somewhere within the
vicinity. They would need supplies, such
as food, .furniture and a series of
amenities, and perhaps in the course of
time schools and other facilities would
be necessary.
Therefore, while it may be true in, the
first instance that the compensation to the
local authority would not be much., because there would not be anybody else
who wanted to buy the land for that
purpose, the mere fact that an atomic
power station was going .to he on that
spot would automatically appreciate the
value of ,the land in the surrounding area,
and if the local authority subsequently
201
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SPARKS.]
wanted to acquire a piece of land adjacent ~o the atomic power station, then
the price .they would have to pay for that
land would probably be much higher
than the price paid for the original
land because of the accrued value
which would have arisen in connection
with it. So that the position is not
very clear.
This is a complicated Bill, and I do
not think the situation is quite so simple
as to be able to restrict it just to the first
instance. where a piece of land is acquired
for an atomic power station or anything
else. because that is the beginning of a
chain reaction which would automatically
appreciate the value of the surrounding
land. Other people will want to buy
land, possibly private builders to put up
houses to house the staff of the atomic
power station, or the local authority.
It means that the value of the land will
appreciate for any subsequent purpose
for which the local authority or a private
builder may want it.
Mr. Brooke: With respect to the hon.
Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), he is
rather taking us beyond the scope of
the Amendment. Whatever views he
may hold on the point lie has raised. the
views he has expressed are really no
argument for voting in favour of this
Amendment. which, as I read it, is closely
restricted to the actual land which is
being acquired.
DivisioD No.
4.1
Planning Bill
202
Mr. loons Silverman: If one concedes
the point that the value of surrounding
land is increased by the activity of the
acquiring authority, it is not logical to
assume that the value of the acquired
land will be increased and not the value
of the land that we are dealing with.
Is it not everybody's experience that once
a public authority interests itself in land,
for whatever purpose, that in itself increases the market value of the land?
That is precisely what we want to avoid.
What strikes me about the Ministers'
reply is this. Apparently he relies on
two inconsistent arguments. He says that
this Amendment does not make any
difference, because even if it were enacted it would not make any substantial
difference to the price of the land. On
the other hi1nd, he says that we cannot
have this Amendment because it will
create an anomaly between land where
planning permission has been given and
land where planning permission has not
been given; and if planning permission
has not been given. somehow or other
the land near is going to suffer. The
Minister cannot have it both ways. and
I hope the Committee will follow the
advice given by the hon. and learned
Gentleman to divide.
Question put, That those words be
there inserted : The Committee divided: Ayes 10.
Noes 18.
AYES
Blllnkln.op, A.
,"Ine, A. d. (Edgll HUI)
LlndgNn. G. a.
MaOCoII, d. E.
Mo'nnll'l, d.
MI~chlltln, G. R.
allYllrman, .rullu, (A.ton)
Balnllll, Lord
Bllvlm, .r. R. (Tol"lllth)
Blggl.Dnl'on, d. A.
Brow, RI. Hon. 'Henry
Cole, Norman
C.orfteld, Cap~. F. Y.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Curden, Harold
,Harrhon, Col. d. H. (EJe)
Hili, Mrs. E. (WJlhonmawe)
Holl, A. F.
.roMaon, Dr. Donald (Cartl,le)
akelHngton, A. M.
8parkJ, d. A.
", WIlIi., EuUaet (Edinburgh, E.•
NOFS
Mr. A. 1. Irvine: I beg to move in
page 2. line 43, to leave out subsections
(3) and (4).
This Amendment is designed to make
more logical and tidy 1Jhe process of
assessing compulsory purchase value.
The law on this subject. as the Committee has recently found, is complicated,
and I suggest that this is largely the
consequence of the extent to which there
dohmon, Erlo (BladdeJ)
IMacpherltln, Nlall (Dumfrle.)
Nlcol.on, N. (B'n'm'th, E. a Chr'l:t'I)
Page, R. G.
Powell, d. Enoch
Temple, dohn M.
has been amending legislation. The insertion of subsections (3) and (4) of this
Clause. I think, exemplify that, because
it brings into tbe Bill the 1947 Act conception of existing use value which
already comprises planning assumptions.
That is the point of this Amendment.
We think that the planning assumptions
that are already comprised in the concept
of existing use value under the 1947 Act
203
Town ond Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
should ·be treated like all the other
planning assumptions that this Bill intro·
duces. Quite apan from the fact that
that will be tidier and more logical, it
will also have the advantage that the
planning assumptions comprised in the
existing use value under the 1947 Act will
be made. like all the other new assump'
tions introduced by this Bill. subject to
the reasonable expectation that planning
permission will be granted. That in short
oompass is the object of this Amendment
to which I invite the attention of the
Committee.
To approach this problem a little more
fully than I have done in those introductory remarks, what is happening under
this Bill is that the Government are resorting to the process of making a series
of assumptions on planning permission,
and these are founded either upon proposals contained in development plans or,
when the plan is silent, upon the issue of
.. cer:tificate of appropriate alternative
development under Clause 4. All these
assumptions, under Clause 3 specifically
and under Clause 4 by implioation, are
made subject to the condition that the
relevant development is one for which
planning pe"mission might reasonably be
expected to be granted.
As I say,accepting the principle of the
Bill for the sake of argument on this
Amendment up to .that point, it might
appear a logical set·up; one takes the
existing use value, the value of the land
as it is, and .then adds to that the value
of the land as it could be. One then
asks the question: Where is the flaw?
The flaw, as I have suggested, lies in the
fact that the existing use value under this
Bill is not the true existing use value. It
is incl uding an assumption of planning
permission, namely, the permission to
carry out the class of development re·
ferred to in the Tthird Schedule to the
1947 Act.
11.0 a.m.
With great respect to those concerned,
it is idle to treat the matter in this way.
It is merely building into this Bill a
concept contained in the 1947 Act for no
other reason than that it is regarded as
the easiest way of dealing with the point.
Hon. Members will remember what was
the effect of the Schedule read with tbe
Act. It provided what permission for
certain classes of development should be
comprised in existing use value. Whether
Planning Bill
204
it was development under Part I or Part U
of the Third Schedule, one always had
to ask for permission to develop. If the
application for permission to develop was
for development in the second part of
the Third Schedule, then the owner
received compensation upon refusal of
permission, but if he were refused permission to carry out development corn.
prised in the first part of the Third
Schedule, no compensation was given.
.
. That was 10 the 1947 Act, an almost
!S?lated case of assumed plannmg. pe"mISSIon for the purposes of determmmg
the compulsory purchase price. but the
present Bill depends upon the conception
of widespread assumed permissions. This
being so, we say that they should all be
dealt with alike and together, and all
made subject to the condition that the
relevant development is one for which
planning permission might reasonably be
expected to be granted. We say that
makes for symmetry and for tidiness, and
that from now on compulsory purchase
price should be (aJ as the base, the true
existing use value and (bJ the value of
all the assumed planning permissions
treated together, not differentiated in any
way.
An anomaly arising from the Bill is
that the owner of an interest in land can
apply for permission to carry out Third
Schedule development and he may be
refused permission: Having been refused
permission, if it is .Part I development in
the Third Schedule. he gets no compensa·
tion for the refusal of permission, but if
under this Bill subsequently the land is
compulsorily acquired, then he receives
the value of that permission which he has
been refused. .With great respect, I put
it to the Minister that this is illogical. It
is a bad case of the kind of untidiness
and illogicality which results from amending legislation, and from building one
class of concept into the amending legislation upon the basis of a different class
~f concepts in the original Act.
If it be said, as it may be, that the
Third Schedule developments under the
1947 Act were small in character,
marginal classes of development, and that
they were the types of development which
it is reasonable to assume would have
been allowed, in respect of which it is
reasonable to say that permission to
develop will be granted on application, I
say two things in reply. First. I do not
205
Town and. Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Plan.i.gBill
206
[MR. lR VINE.]
is destroyed by fire. ·the owner may be
think that is an accurate account of the refused permission to rebuild his
matter and. secondly-an important property. Under the Bin the owner is
point-if this were so. the obvious entitled to .the value of the site as if he
remedy would be to make it no longer were entitled to build upon it. I think
necessary in law to apply for permission the hon. Gen tleman will agree with me
for Third Schedule development. That. on that point. Under the Amendment
I would have thought. is manifestly the he would not be so entitled, and if the
answer to any suggestion that may be Amendment were accepted .the owner of
made in reply to the arguments for this the land would be .left with a piece of
Amendment. that we are dealing here land which was worth less because no
with the type of permission which in planning permission would attach to it.
normal cases is allowed. If that is so. . In those circumstances. I am afraid my
then an end ought to be put to the riglit hon. Friend cannot accept the
requirement ,that the development must Amendment.
be subject to application for planning
Mr. Sparks: I want to put to the
permission,
Parliamentary Secretary one point that
This Amendment, therefore, is put arises here. Subsection (3) states:
before the Committee in the hope that it
.. Subject to the next following subsection,
is constructive in character, and there is it shall be assumed that planning permission
no party point attached to it. It is would be granted, in respect of the relevant
designed to simplify, to make more land or any part thereof, for development of
class specified in the Third Schcdule to
logical and symmetrical, and to tidy the _any
the Act of J947 {which relates to developlaw on this matter.
ment included in the existing use of land),"
Tbe Parliamentary Secretary to tbe Then subsection (4) states:
Ministry of Housing and Local Govern.. Notwithstanding anything in the last prement (Mr. J. R. Bevins) : I have listened ceding subsection (a) it shall not by virtue of
that subsection be assumed that planning per10 what has been said by the hon. Gentle:mission would be granted. in respect of the
man the Member for Liverpool, Edge relevant land or any part thereof, for developHill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and I do not want ment of any class specified in Part 11 of the
to 'become engaged with him in his con- said Third Schedule. if it is development for
planning pennission was refused at any
struction of the 1947 and 1954 town and which
time before the date of service of the notice
country planning legislation. As I under- to treat and compensation under section twenty
stand the hon. Gentleman. he is saying of the Act of 1947 became payable in respect
that existing use value. as defined under of that refusal; ".
the 1947 Act, carries certain planning
As I understand it, this means that if
assumptions for the purpose of existing pl~nning permission had been refused for
use value. and that those assumptions any of the uses included in the Third
should be treated in the same way under Schedule, compensation would be paythis Bill as are the other and perhaps able normally for the refusal of planning
broader assumptions embodied in the permission. If planning permission has
Bill. also that they ought to be subject been refused and compensation is payto the condition which runs through the able. then it is stated that planning
Bill that those permissions should be permission shall not 'be assumed in future
granted only when they are reasonable for the same piece of land for the same
planning permissions in the cireum- purpose.
stances,
Why is it restricted to the Third
Subsection (3) provides that permission Schedule? There are many other case.
is .to be assumed for any development where planning permission is refused for
specified in the Third Schedule to the uses other than those in the Third
1947 Act. and its purpose is to ensure Schedule. It may ,be a normal. straightthat no owner shall get less than existing forward application for planning peruse value. The most important of tnose mission in a residential or industrial
Third Schedule assumptions is that an area, or in some other part, in a developowner shall be entitled .to rebuild a build- ment plan. That may have been refused
ing which has been demolished or to and compensation may have been payexpand his building by one-tenth. As able upon it. Therefore. why should not
the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it can this part of subsection (4) apply to all
happen that if a house in the Green Belt cases. not merely to those uses specified
207
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
in Ihe Third Schedule. bul to all cases
where planning permission has been
refused and where compensation is
payable for refusal.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has some explanation to give us.
but it seems to me that to restrict refusal
of planning permission merely to uses in
the Third Schedule is only taking a part
of the general refusals that arise from
time to time, and I should have thought
il sound to say that when Once planning
permission for any use has been given,
whether for uses in the Third Schedule or
not, no subsequent permission may be
given for precisely the same use. If it
is to apply to all cases. it looks to me
as if this Clause needs to be amended.
Mr. MitchisoD : I hope we shall get a
little further explanation because I find
this difficult to follow. As I understand
it. the second part of the Third Schedule
to the 1947 Act provides for certain
enlargements, alterations and other
matters which are included in existing
use for all purposes. If that is a fair
description of what happens, it puzzles
me why it is necessary that they should
be dealt with expressly again. Are they
not covered partly by the rules and partly
by the provisions we are making under
Clauses 3 and 4?
1:1.15 a.m.
I am not quite clear how far that
also applies la the Part I developments
-that is to say, those under Part I of
the Third Schedule-but il seems to me,
at any rate, much the same. I should'
,have thought my hon. and learned
Friend's argument that they really were
covered by the Bill as it is was convincing. I listened to the Parliamentary
Secretary but I was not quite clear why
he considered in 'the case he mentioned
that the effect would be as he gave it.
lt did not seem to me to answer my
,hon. and learned Friend's point. I agree
that this is not a contentious matter. but
I am sure the Committee would all lean
towards simplifying this very complicated
Bill and this mare's nest of assumptions,
if we could manage it. I am wondering
whether there would be serious difficulty
if these two subsections were both
omitted.'.
One does not want to be unfair to any
substantial extent over it. I wonder if
the Government would reconsider what
Planning BUI
208
my ,hon. Friend said, and see whether il
would be possible la treat these matters
rather differently.
. '
Mr. Irvme: The PMhamentary Secretary appeared to base his argument
against this Amendment on the ground
that if the Amendment ,became law there
would be no value of the permission for
Third Schedule development comprised
in the purchase price. I think that is
wholly wrong. The value of the permission for T,hird Schedule development
would be comprised in the values to be
applied by the putting in of subsections
(3) and (4). I support my ,hon. and
learned Friend's request that this should
be looked into again. and I would par,ticularly ask the Parliamentary Secretary
to 'have regard olD what I 'have said.
Mr. Bevins: I am grateful for what
has been said by both hon. and learned
Members and the way in which they have
said it. I can see the difficulty they have
at the back of their minds. We want to
be reasonable. This is a highly technical
matter. My right hon. Friend has said
he would like to look at one or two
aspects of this Clause and we are willing
to re-examine it in the light of what has
been said.
Mr. Irvine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the AmeDdment.
A mendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Arthnr SkeflingtoD : I beg to move
in page 3, line 23 at the end to insert:
(c) where, at any time before the said date,
planning permission granted in respect of the
relevant land or any part thereof was modified
and compensation under seetion twenty·two of
the Act of 1947 became payable in respect of
that modification, it shall not by virtue of the
last preceding subseetion be assumed that per~
mission for that development, in respeet of the
relevant land or that part thereof, as the ease
may be, would be granted otherwise than as
so modified.
The ChairmaD: I think that this and
the next Amendment, in line 23
(c) where, at any time before the said date,
planning permission granted in respect of the
relevant land or any part thereof for develo~
ment of any class specified in the said Third
Schedule was revoked and compensation under
section twenty-two of the Act of 1947 beeame
payable in respect of that revocation, it shaU
not by virtue of the last preceding subsection
be assumed that planning permission for that
development would be granted in respeet of
the relevant land or that part thereof, as the
case may be,
can be taken together.
209
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Skeffington: These Amendments
are designed to remedy what appears to
be a very serious omission from this part
of Clause 2. Clause 2 in general speci.
fies the assumptions about planning permissions which are to be made for the
purpose of assessing compensation. Subsection (3) provides that development
specified in the Third Schedule of the
1947 Act, which relates to development
included in the existing use of land.
should be assumed as permissible for this
purpose in assessing compensation.
Subsection (4) then goes on to provide
tha.t any value conferred by ~ssumptlons
which has already bee!! realised by ~he
payment of c?mpensa~lOn under SectIon
20 of the malO Act 10 r~spect. fo.r ~x.
ample•.of refusal of planmng permIssIon
for ThIrd Schedule development. or for
the i~position of conditions in relation
to ThIrd .Sched':lle developn;ent. should
not be paId agam. or taken IOta account
on a second occasIOn.
Further. under subsection (4) it is pro·
vided that under Section 27 of the 1947
Act. where there has been an order made
under Section 26 of that Act requiring
the removal of a building or the discon·
tinuance of a particular use of land. then
where compensation bas already been
paid. again it sball be excluded in the
arrival at any total sum of compensation
to be paid under the terms of this Bill.
I am personally in full agreement with
that. It is quite proper that compensation
aIready paid under Sections 20 and 27 of
the principal Act should be excluded.
but I cannot understand why. if that is
the case. compensation under Section 22
of the principal Act should not also be
excluded. For example. the first Amend·
ment deals with the case where there has
been a revocation after planning permission has been given in connection
With. Third Schedule development. and
as a result compensation has already
been paid. Why should this not also be
excluded?
Planning Bill
210
Certainly the London County Council has
considered the point and has asked the
hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson)
and myself to raise it. We have had
our argument under Clause I about the
basis of compensation and market value
and how it is going to be worked out.
But this is an entirely different point. and
I cannot really believe tbat the Govern·
ment intend that there should be double
compensation payable in the instances
covered by both Amendments.
I
h
h
G tl
am sure t at even OD. en emeD
opposite cannot believe that that is right
and be prepared to justify that before
their constituents. I hope the Minist.er
will feel. unless we have completely mts·
understood the import of this subsection.
that there is a really extraordinary omission here and that he will consider it
either by' accepting the Amendment or
by giving some undertaking that it may
be dealt'with at a later stage if the drafting of these Amendments is not suitable.
I do not think we have had a single concession yet from the Government. I hope
we may perhaps get a softening of the
heart on this one.
Mr. Bevins: I think we may be able
to dispose of these two Amendments quite
shortly. Subsection (3) of this Clause
says that permission shall be assumed for
development covered by the Third
Schedule to the 1947 Act. and the following subsection says that if the value given
by these assumptions has already been
realised. that is to say. by the payment
of compensation under Section 20 or
Section 27 of'the 1947 Act, that is not to
be taken into account a second time. That
is quite right.
The Amendment to which the hon.
Gentleman has spoken says that where
planning permission was modified. or
planning permission for development as
specified in the Third Schedule was re·
jected. and compensation has been pay·
In a similar way. in the second Amend- able under Section 22 of the 1947 Act.
ment where permission bas been given the modification of the planning permisand then modified for some reason. corn· sion or its revocation is to qualify for
pensation will in fact bave been taken permission for Third Schedule developinto account or paid by virtue of Section ment under subsection (3). I understand
22. I cannot see why that compensation from what he said that the Am6ndment
should be calculated and included again is intended to bring the qualifications of
in any payments tbat must become due the existing use value assumption in
under the Clause. I know a number of Clause 2 (4) into line with Section 5I (2)
local authorities are concerned about this. of the 1947 Act.
Planning Bill
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
212
211
This brings me to the real point that 11.30 a.m.
he was making, on the question of comMr, Bevins: It may not have been
pensation payable under Section 22 of the quite clear to some hon. and learned
1947 Act. We have been into this and I Members and, for ·that matter, to some
am advised that the Amendment is un· people outside the Committee, but if one
necessary, for the reason that Section 39 looks at the Clause as it stands and also
of the 1954 Act provides that compensa- at the earlier legislation, particularly the
tion which is paid under Section 22 of 1947 Act, I lhink the position becomes
the 1947 Act for revocation or modifica- clear. In this mood of sweet reasonabletion of a planning permission is to be ness which lhe Committee has been en·
registered as a charge on the land, which joying this morning, however, there is no
can be recovered before the development objection to considering whether at a
occurs. This would automatically be later stage something might be done to
taken into account in assessing the market make the position even clearer. I am
value of the land. To that extent, the sure that if -the 1947 Act is considered in
change which has been proposed is un- association with this provision, the posinecessary and the Clause as it stands in tion is clear.
this particular sense is correct.
Mr. Skeffington: In view of the assurMr. C. W. Gibson : Does that mean that ance given that this point is covered under
in effect there will be no double payment Section 39 of the 1954 Act, it is unnecesin some cases'referred to in the Amend- sary for us to consider -the matter further
ment? It is a bit involved, and I was now, although I am sure lhat my hon.
not quite clear exactly whether it meant Friends and myself would like to reserve
that.
our ,position for discussions on the Report
stage after subsequent inquiries. I can
Mr. Revins: The hon. Gentleman is assure the Parliamentary Secretary that
quite right. Double payment is prevented. a number of experienced practitioners
Mr. Mitchison : We all want to get this have missed .the point, as I have missed
clear and there does not seem to be any it. It seemed anomalous that there was
point of difference about it. Is it auto- reference to compensation paid under
matically registered as a land charge or Sections 20 and 27 but not to Section 22.
is some action to he taken about it? What In view of the assurance given categorichappens if someone omits to register it for ally. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
Amendment.
some reason?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Revins: It .happens automatically.
Mr, Mitchison : This has obviously mis·
led some experienced people, or we would
not have had this suggestion made. I
wonder if it is possible in some form to
make it clear in the Bill, if it is only in
the form of some declaration or statement or removal of doubt. If I had been
iooking at it the land charge would not
have occurred to me. It may he that
other people are sufficiently covered. It
is said that that is automatically included.
I suppose it would be automatic in the
sense that any valuer would take notice of
the existence of the land charge. But
would it not he possible to put something
in the Bill making that clear and to call
the attention of some local valuer to something which I thought might possibly mislead him otherwise? Could that be con·
sidered -as a possibility? It might be a
case of something said in the ministerial
circular that so often accompanies these
Bills.
Mr. lames MacCnD : I beg to move, in
page 3, line 35, to leave out subsection
(5).
'0
I am happy
say that I shall in no
way destroy the lOne of the Committee
this morning, ·heoause ,I am positively
oozing oweet reasoMbleness. I seek w
omit subsection (5) lbecause tiIle drafting
of ·the Bill Ihas put .us in an awkward
position .in examining the subsequent
Clauses. If ·hon. Members turn to the
explanatory .White Paper ·to find out
what this subsection means they will
read ·~hat.
.. Subsection (5) looks forward to Clauses 4
to 6 which deal with a special problem (see
noles on those Clauses)."
That is a -happy phrase. I cannot
imagine anyone looking forward to
Clauses 4 to 6. ,I prefer to contemplate
them as a grim ordeal whioh will proh.
ahly overshadow our Christmas festivities
213
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MAcCOLL.]
and to ,wbicb we sball return subsequently ,in facing tbe barsb realities of
trying to understand tbose Clauses.
We 'are in -tbis difficulty: if we pass
rbis subsection and tben delete or 'alter
-tbe subsequent Clauses wben we reaob
tbem, we sball be left witb tlhe reference
to tbem in tbis subsection. It tberefore
seems to me appropriate to move tbe
deletion of tbe subsection in a purely
inquiring frame of mind in order to try
to elicit from ,tbe Government a broad
explanation of bow tbis system of certification-if tbat is rbe riglbt word, for
" certifying" appears a little out of con-text bere~will work in .practice. 1 find
it extremely complicated, and if at times
1 sound ratber stupid, it may be partly
Unat Nature w,HI out, but it may also be
that -the whole of -this procedure, if not
novel, at any rate has many odd corners
about it into which nobody has penetrated. 1 hope that the Government will
give us a general outline of what it is all
about.
My first difficulty concerns in precisely
what circumstances these cer,tificates will
be necessary. 1 can see that in cases
where there is no development plan it
may be necessary to have something of
this sort, but 1 do not know whether
there are any cases in whicb tbere is no
development plan. If there are, surely
they are only temporary cases. 1 thought
that development plans were rather like
parishes in the established Church:
wherever there is a soul there is a parish
responsible for that soul. '1 thought that
wherever there was a piece of land in
this country, ,there was a development
plan watching over and guarding its
growth. It may be that some councils
bave been slow in agreeing with the Government the details of a development
plan, but that is purely a temporary
matter for adjustment during the period
until development plans have been finally
approved.
My first question, therefore, is this:
in what circumstances will there not be
a development plan covering the area
and will tbere not have .been some decision about the use to which tbe land is
to be put?
Secondly, as 1 read the subsequent
Clauses, to which 1 imagine 1 ougbt not
to allude in too mucb detail, it appears
that tbere may be circumstances in
Planning Bill
214
which tbere is a development plan but
that the specifying of the uses to whicb
a particular area may be put are not
sufficiently detailed or sufficiently varied
for an adequate valuation to be made.
That, 1 gather from a reading of the ex·
planatory ,White Paper, might arise
where a plan has zoned or specified a
particular parcel of land for one purpose
only.
1 do not know whetber that is the
difficulty and the reason for these certificates. My difficulty is this: is there not
already a procedure for dealing with the
problems of a development plan which
has specified a particular piece of land to
be used, for examplc, for some public
purpose?
Once that specification is
made, does there not apply the procedure
under the 1947 Act for giving a notice to
purchase to the authority which is specifying a particular area on which it has
its eyes? I have in mind a site in
Paddington which the council has specified for building a town hall-a somewhat idealistic and romantic hope,
perhaps, but a result of it obviously is
the freezing of the land for all other purposes. The authority was invited to buy
it by purchase notice, and it did so. It
seems that in such a case there is no need
for any further procedure.
What are the cases in which it is
necessary to go beyond the development
plan in order to have a certificate? The
difficulty seems that two very broad
hypotheses have to be made. First. we
must get the planning authority to look
forward and say, "This land is in fact
not to be used for any of these uses but
it is possible, that under certain circumstances planning permission might be
given if thc facts were not, as in fact
tbey are." That is what it amounts to.
We must assume that it will not be used
for public purposes, and we must then
think of all the other possible uses towhich it might be put. That seems in
itself an extraordinarily vague approacb
to the problem.
The planning autbority baving produced this certificate, on this very wild
-bypothesis. the next stage is that tbe
valuer must look at the land and say,
" If tbis land is to be used for purposes
for which 1 know it will not be used,
what will be the value of the land?" He
is immediately launched on an extremely
vague and bypothetical consideration in
trying to decide the value of the land.
215
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
I hope that the whole business is not
necessary, because it seems to me to defeat
what I thought was the object ,?f the Bill.
I understood that we ~ere cuttlOg out all
thiS nonsense and geltmg down to plam,
honest market value. I understood that
plalO, honest market value was somethmg
everybody could understand. I understood that we were to !let away from all
t?ese hypotheses, compltcatlOns and vana·
tlOns.. That IS the case for the BIll, such
as It IS, and I can see the altractlOn of
that approach.
Here, however, we have something
whicb again shows how impossible it
appears to be to apply anything as simple
as market value. What we are asking the
•planning authority to do. is to t.ake itself
out of the actual sltu~tlOn which eXls.ts
and to look at a posllIon which IS m
essence unreal because everybody knows
that It will not anse. Indeed, nobody
may ever have expected It to anse.
Consider some land which has eitber
been zoned on the ground that it should
not be used for development, or where it
has generally been understood that it will
not be and should not be used for development-for example, because the highway
authority is to put a main arterial road
through it or because it is to be -used for
some public purpose. Lmmediately the
misplaced ingenuity of everybody will be
directed to thinking of all possible uses
to ~hich. this land could be put in all
pOSSible cllcumstances.
As a result, an artificial valuation will
be placed upon it. It may be a piece of
undeveloped land in the middle of the
country. which would remain ~ndeveloped
for an mdefimte p~nod, but Just because
the publtc 'uthonty, under. pr~ssure of
the need to dlschar!le Its obltgauons, has
to use It for a publtc purpose, everybody
will immediately try to look ahead and to
say, .. It is just possible that at some time
in the future an atomic pile will be erected
not far away and this land will be re·
quired for a shopping centre." All sorts
of romantic stories will be built up in
order to persuade the planning authority,
and other authorities on appeal from the
planning authority, to give a certificate
that this is a possible fonn of develop·
ment.
I cannot see the limits of this
romantic and imaginative exercise. Per·
haps when he gives us in broad outline
a picture of how this will work, the
Minister will be able to remove SOme of
Plonning Bill
216
these doubts which I feel and which many
of my hon. Friends feel.
There is another difficulty which I
should like explained. A planning authority may Ibe able to say that this suggested
use is not a reasonable use and therefore
it will not give planning pennission for
it. That is covered in the Bill, and argu.
ment can take place on the likelihood of
planning permission being given. Bur
what of the case where t-here is no strong
reason for which the planning authority
should not give permission if it is asked
for pennission, -but in which common
sense suggests that nobody who was not
in a very strange situation would ever
dream of asking for such permission .
Consider, ,for instance, the question of
building a 15-storeyholel in ~he middle of
Rannoch Moor. This might be very
valuable and might raise the amenities
of the area very muoh, and it might therefore -be difficult for the planning authority to refuse permission. <In point of
fact, nobody who is not a lunatic is likely
to do It. On the other hand, if our old
fnend the sewerage farm were to be bUilt
!?ere, somebody might immediately say,
I had thought about bUlldmg a 15storey hotel on Rannoch Moor,"and that
IS a pOSSible use to whIch the land ml~ht
be put.
Does a certificate have to be given to
jump up the value of -the land which is
being acquired? I should like -help, and
I think many hon. Members would -like
help, on the c.onverse case. One .can see
th~t where It IS unreasonable to gIVe permISSion the subsectIon wIll work, but I
:her~O\t cl~a~o~bo~t ~~~hc~nv~~~e~a:r
reasonableness, but development from
the point of view of a hypothetical
developer. How does the Bill deal with
that point?
.
11.45 a.m.
I very much regret the necessity for the
certificates. The whole thing seems to me
to.be completely removed from reality.
If the Bill is to ·have any value, it must
surely try to bring down all these com·
plex exercises to something like commonsense so that people can understand them.
If the Government propose to play
games, the best game was ~he 1947 game,
which did justice between oDe owner and
another and kept down land values in
terms of public authority. The criticism
---which I do not share hut the weight of
217
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. MAcCOLL.)
wbic.h I can see-about the 1947 solution
of the difficulty is that it was a game in
the sense that there were all sons of
·hypotheses and the ordinary man felt that
it would 'be unjust and ,we should,therefore, get rid of it.
The Government have decided to get
rid of it, but instead of substituting something that is clear, which the ordinary
man can understand, they are erecting a
structure of hypotheses which will
eventually culminate in the production of
a value based on the certificate, and the
value will be hypothetical because it will
deal with circumstances that have never
existed and never will exist. The certificate will be hypothetical because it will
deal with a situation which has never
existed and which never wiII exist. It
is an elaborate game to try to attach a
value to a piece of land, and I suspect
that it will work unfairly as between one
landowner and another. It will certainly
take the acquiring authority for a ride.
But as I suspect that the object of the
Bill is to take acquiring authorities for a
ride, I do not imagine that that will worry
the Government. Obviously their object
is to mulct the public for the benefit of
the landowner. Therefore, there is not
much point in developing an argument
about what will happen when that is what
the Government want to happen.
I hope that we shall get a plain man's
guide in words of one syllable about the
object of the certificate procedure, how
it will wOlk and what sort of result it
will produce. That is my object in proposing that the subsection should be
deleted. It is not that we want to settle
the question on a general Amendment of
this sort, but it would give the Government an opportunity, in the happy phrase
that the Government use, to look forward
to the Clauses and lead us gently into the
treacherous byways that we shall have,
to tread after the Recess.
Mr. Brooke: I would not for one
moment demur from the view of the bono
Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) thai
the 1947 Act imported into land matters
the excitements of a game. However,
the vast majority of the people believe
that it was a very bad game. There may
be one or two, like the hon. Member,
who think that it was a good game.
Mr. Mitchison : It is a much misrepresented game.
Planning Bill
218
Mr. MacCoU : Like the Prime Minister,
we shall be justified by history.
Mr. Brooke : It is for the hon. Member
to take the responsibility of being judged
by history, by the recording angel or by
the electors of Widnes.
Mr. Mitchison : I should like to remind
the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime
Minister never considers either the record.
ing angel or the electors of Bromley.
Mr. Brooke : With respect to the Prime
Minister, I should like to address myself
to the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Widnes said that
the intention of the Bill is to mulct or
milk local authorities. My experience
over many years of dealing with local
authority associations is that they are
fairly sharp in understanding what the
Government are doing, and on occasion
of suspecting that the Government are
doing something more harmful to the
interests of local authorities than we are.
H there were a grain of truth in the hon.
Member's allegation, there is not the
slightest doubt that the local authority
associations would have protested against
the main purpose of the Bill. but they
have not done so.
The hon. Member and I together with
most hon. Members, probably agree that
we do not look forward to Clause 4 as
much as we look forward to the Eighth
Schedule. Pages 76 and 77 are the ones
which we can regard as the culmination
of the excitements. of our BiIl and the
termination of our elIorts. I must, ho:,vever, be careful in what I say, because
clearly, Sir Robert, you would not allow
me on an Amendment to Clause 2 to
idilate at ;length on the provisions of
Clause 4. If I express any views about
the Amendment I shall be speaking in
general terms, and, although I trust that
the Committee will accept Clause 4, nevertheless, if the Committee by some chance
made drastic amendments to Clause 4,ob·
viously we should have to consider this
subsection, which is the basis of Clause 4.
The next point that I want to clear
up concerns purchase notices. I think
that is a red herring. Designation or
allocation of land does not in itself give
rise to a purchase notice. Even where
purchase notices arise, the question will
still remain: at what sort of value is the
purchase to take place? The whole of
the certificate procedure is designed to
219
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
help towards the answer to that question,
which is hound to arise at various points
in the operation of compulsory purchase.
What planning permission should be
assumed? The hon. Member for Widnes
said that market value is sometimes
talked of as though it were an easy concept and that we find a great many lines
in the Bill purporting to define the market value further. Obviously, there is a
problem here, whatever we do. The prob·
lem is to seek to define the market value
of land which, ex hypothesi, is being withdrawn from the open market by the
announcement of the acquiring authority
that it intends to purchase the land
compulsorily. In such cases we have to
frame questions and seek to answer them.
Clause 4 sets out the machinery by which,
in the Government's view, it would be
wise and reasonable to seek and obtain
answers to that question in certain types
of case.
There are three types of case in which
the development plan does not or may not
provide a sufficient guide to the develop·
ment which might have heen permitted
hut for the compulsory acquisition. One
case is where the land is defined or allocated for the purpose for which it is being
being acquired, which, as the hon. Member for Widnes said, might be a sewage
works. Yet, if one is to seek to find
the market value of that land, one has to
ask: what market value might the land
have commanded if it were not being
acquired for a sewage works?
Secondly, there is the case where the
land is not allocated or defined for
development. That does not necessarily
mean that no development would be per·
mitted. One has to seek an answer, again,
to the question, what planning permission
would be granted. If the hon. Member
asks the Committee to believe that when
anybody applies to a planning authority
for permission to put a ten-storey hotel
on the moors the planning authority con·
cerned immediately grants permission, I
must ask him to think again.
Mr, Gibson , That is what happens.
Mr. Brooke, About 7,000 appeals are
made to the Minister every year against
refusals of planning permission. If plan.
ning authorities behave as the hon. Member for Widnes insinuates they do behave,
clearly the appeal procedure would fall
into disuse because nobody would need
Planning Bill
220
to appeal. Planning authorities do their
best and seek to reach a judgment on
the merits of the case in the light of the
planning principles which they apply.
Then, if the would-be developer thinks
that planning permission has been un·
reasonably refused. he has a right of
appeal.
Mr. MacColl : I must have put my case
very badly. I was not criticising the
planning authorities. I said that there
might be cases where a planning authority
would welcome a development, but no
prudent man would launch on such
development.
Mr. Brooke: I think that is the sort
of case which would arise under Clause 4.
At the moment, we are debating only the
principle of the matter. Both the hon.
Member and I are in some difficulty lest
we trespass on matters which we shall
reach later.
I mentioned two classes of case. There
is the third class which was mentioned by
the hon. Gentleman, namely, where there
is no approved development plan in existence. That is a transitional case. because
in due course development plans for the
whole country will be approved. Never·
theless, with this Bill before Parliament,
we must take cognisance of the fact that
there are parts of the country which are
not yet covered by approved development
plans.
It is to deal broadly with those three
classes of case that the certificate proced ure has been devised. Since the Bill
has been prod uced I have not seen any
damaging criticism of the general idea.
I know that there are those who think
that it could have been done in another
way and that the matter could be left
to the Lands Tribunal. I doubt whether
Parliament would be doing its duty if it
left such enormously broad discretion to
the Lands Tribunal, which we all know
is already overworked. It would be more
proper for Parliament to seek to define
the machinery which should be applied
in cases of this sort.
I will stop short of describing the
machinery of application for a certificate
and the procedure should a certificate be
refused. I will simply Come back to
what I think is the central point of the
Clause. If we were to delete from the
Bill the whole conception of the certificate
221
Town and Counlry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BROO!CE.]
procedure, and if the subsection and
Clause 4 were to go, the effect would be
to leave an owner with only his existing
use value where the land was being
bought by a public authority for an
unremunerative purpose, unless the land
had been already allocated in an
approved development plan for a more
valuable use.
12 noon.
The underlying principle of the Bill
is that an owner should be entitled in
the case of compulsory acquisition to
receive the value which he could have
expected to receive in the open market
had there been no public acquisition.
We are all aware that market value in
the modern world depends on planning
permissions. That means, therefore, that
some assumptions must be made about
the planning permission that might he
granted in such a case. Those assumptions may be related to the development
plan, and that class of case we shall be
examining further when we come to deal
with Clause 3. But in many cases, as I
have tried to explain, the development
plan does not give sufficient guidance,
and it is because there are those classes
of cases that the certificate system is
necessary, in the view of the Government,
to fill the gap.
That is the explanation of what we
are seeking to do. As I say, I am very
ready to listen to suggestions from both
sides of the Committee if it is possible to
improve the detail of it, but I hope that
the Committee will accept that there is
nothing sinister in this plan and that it
would be unwise to leave so much to
the Lands Tribunal-I almost said to
chance, but I must not confuse the Lands
Tribunal, which is a highly respected
body, with the tribunal of chance. I
submit that Parliament should address
itself to these three Clauses on the hasis
which I have indicated, and that the
certificate procedure is a practical and
rational way to seek to arrive at an
answer to the fundamental question
\Chich has to be asked if market value
i, to be ascertained.
Mr. Mitchison : May I put in one word
for the purposes of clarification? What
we are discussing, as I understand it. is
the class of case to which the certificate
procedure applies. because when we come
Planning Bill
222
to Clause 4 that, I think, is really a
machinery Clause; that is to say, it
describes how we get a certificate and
matters arising out of that. It really is this
subsection, as I see it, which in effect
raises the question of whether the certificate procedure is at all appropriate and
to what classes of case it applies.
Mr. Brooke: If the hon. and learned
Gentleman will excuse me, I think I
understand what he is seeking to put. But
surely subsection (I) of Clause 4 is not a
machinery provision. Surely it is when
we reach that subsection that we shall
be addressing ourselves to the sort of
classes which I think are in the hon. and
learned Gentleman's mind at the moment.
Mr. Mitchison : I only want to get this
clear, and it is really a somewhat elaborate point of order rather than a speech;
It IS not addressed to the Committee at
large, but just to get the procedure clear.
There is in Clause 4. the machinery
Clause, as I continue to call it, the
passage to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded about leaving out,
if I may take one case, areas of comprehensive development. If we want to raise
the question whether the certificate proeedure is appropriate for areas of corn·
prehensive development, is this the right
place to do it, or is subsection (I) of
Clause 4 the right place?
The Chainnan: In answer to the hon.
ana learned Gentleman, the right place
will be, I think, on Clause 4. I readily
agree that this is a difficult Bill to handle
on these points, but I think it would be
for the convenience of ·the Committee if
we kept to the general principle of the
certificate procedure-as the right hon.
Gentleman said, this subsection paves the
way for Clause 4-and leave the details
till later.
Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful, Sir
Robert. May I take this a stage further,
because I ·think in the long ru'n it will
save time by excluding various discussions
on what is substantially one point. In
subsection (4) of Clause 3 there are other
provisions about comprehensive development. If we pass those. am I right in
supposing that it will not prejudice the
application of certificate procedure to
areas of comprehensive development
when we Come to subsection (I) of
Clause 4?
223
Town and Country
It DECEM BER 1958
The Chainnao: Would the hOD. and
learned Gentleman please put that point
again?
. .
.
Mr. MIlchlSoo : I am sorry, SlrRobert.
SubsectIon (4) of Clause 3 deals with areas
of comprehensive development. The pomt
that some of my hon. Friends and I desire
to raISe IS the apphcablhty to those ar~as
of certIficate procedur~ ; and the ques~lOn
I have just mdlcated IS whether the fight
place to raise that IS under subsectIOn (I)
of Clause 4. Am I right in supposing
that by passing subsection (4) of Clause 3
we shall not be prejudicing our fight to
deal With that matter when we come to
subsectIon (I) of Clause 4?
.
.
..
The Chalfrnan: It wIll not prejudICe
that fight.
Mr. Mitchisoo : Thank you, Sir Robert.
Mr. Sparks: There was one point in
the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman
about which I was ·not quite clear. I
thought he was arguing in relation to the
certification process which is referred to
in subsection (5) as though it was of
general application. It is, to some
extent, in line with the point put by my
hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
I should like to ask the Minister about
the reference which is made in subsection (5) of this Clause to the question
of a certificate. As far as we go now,
it does not apply to areas of comprehensive development or in areas zoned
under the development plan for residential, industrial or other uses. I think
it is important to make that distinction.
The Minister also brought in a reference
to the Lands Tribunal. The point ;s
somewhat complicated, ,because there is
no provision for certification in any case
which arises in areas of comprehensive
development or areas under the development plan scheduled for residential,
industrial or other purposes. So that the
certification process is strictly ,limited to
places where the uses are not quite so
clearly defined. I do not know whether
this is the point where we ought to raIse
by way of amendment that the certification process should be extended to all
places and not merely to those outside
the comprehensive development areas.
The Chairman: Order. I think that
would clearly come under Clause 4 and
not at this stage.
27148
Planning Bill
224
Mr. Sparks: So that we can be assured
that this question of restrictIon. of the
certification process only to certalD cases
will not be prejudiced at a later stag~ by
leaving subsection (5) as It IS. I beheve
that is the point. Sir Robert. but the fight
hon Gentleman did not make 1hat clear
in ~hat he said. He rather gave me the
impression that what he was saying
applied to cases of comprehensive
development.
Mr. Brooke : Let me make it clear that,
though I was seeking in my speech to
avoid making specific references to
Clause 4, the certificate procedure does
not apply to those classes of cases defined
in the last five lines of page 5, whIch are
h I
f
to which I think the
1 e c asses 0 cases
.
hon. Member IS referrmg.
Mr. Sparks: Thank you, Sir Robert.
The Minister has now made that clear.
Mr. Gibson: I may be wrong about
what I have to say, but it seems to f1).e
Su bsection
to have some relevance.
(6. cl says;
.. either on an ordinary application or on an
outline application . . ."
If that is interpreted in the same way as
the 1947 Town Planning Act. anybody
can say he is going 10 develop a piece
of land in a certain way. and require
planning permission to do so. and he can
succeed in getting permission and the
certificate even though he does not own
the land. At any rate, in 1948 and 1949
there was a market in planning permissions in London and they were selling
sometimes at a considerable profit.
Mr. Brooke: On a point of order. I
shall be in some difficulty in answering
on an Amendment to leave out subsection (5) a point which the hon. Member
for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has himself
related to subsection (6).
The Chairman: I was allowing the hon.
Member to develop his point. but I had
it in mind. It really does not arise on
this Amendment.
Mr. Gibson: I will raise it on 1he
Question, That the Clause stand part of
the Bill.
Mr. Graham Page: I think I can pu t
quite briefly the point I want to ask my
right hon. Friend. It is this. Where
does subsection (5) fit in with the other
B
225
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. PAGE.]
:assumptions which have to be made
under subsections (2) and (3)? For
'example, subsection (2) of Clause 2 says:
...... it shall be assumed that planning per:mission would be granted"
for certain purposes there stated.
section (3) says:
Sub-
.... . . it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted
It
for certain purposes there stated. Then
in subsection (5), with which we are now
dealing, the same sort of assumption is
to be made.
When we turn to Clause 3, with which
I do not intend to deal in detail, there
again there are assumptions of planning
permissions. What I want to know is
whether the owner of the land is entitled
-to collect all these assumptions together
and to take that which suits him best.
Is there any priority as between these
various assumptions which have to be
made? For example, that under sub·
section (5), with which we are now dealing, might be contrary to that under subsection (2). Is there any priority between
them? Are they exclusive in any way. or
can they all be collected together and the
owner take his choice?
Mr. Brooke: In answer to that ques·
tion, I should not like to give a hasty
answer that they can all be collected
together, because some of them are in
fact mutually exclusive. But if the hon.
Member is asking whether the provisions
in Clause 3 or ClauSe 4 may, as it were.
top up what is said in Clause 2 and not
be overridden by some restrictive provision in Clause 2, I can give him that
assurance.
Mr. MaceoU: I am not sure whether
the answer -to the question by the hon.
Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is
rational, but I have faith in the Minister
that the answer is that on whichever basis
compensation is fixed it will not be that
which is at the expense of the landowner
that the Bill will allow. I think the hon.
Member for Crosby is mainly concerned
at getting more compensation at the
expense of the public, so that the owner
of the land need not worry over Christmas as to what will happen.
The Minister referred to the recording
angel. I must say -that if. the recording
angel is going to deal with me, I hope
he will do so on the basis of fact and not
Planning Bill
226
hypothesis. My chances of salvation will
have to depend on my having lived a
comparatively secluded life and if the
recording angel· is going to say what
would I have done if I had been in close
proximity to Cleopatra. I feel that my
chances of damnation are very great.
12.15 p.m.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman
would have an appeal to the Minister.
Mr. Mitchison: At least it would not
be a question of what planning permissions would be assumed in those
circumstances.
Mr. MacCoU: I think my hon. and
learned Friend is taking the Committee
rather far, even for a pre.Christmas
Sitting. The point I want to make about
the recording angel is that we ought not
to judge on hypotheses if it can be
avoided. The only sure basis for making
a fair and just assessment is on the basis
of facts, and that is a weakness of this
procedure.
Looking ahead I suggest-and I toss
this out to my hon. Friend as well as
to the right hon. Gentleman-that it is
probably not the answer, that we should
treat -this purely in terms of a transi·
tional need. In other INords, as the right
hon. Gentleman said, it is a temporary
situation where there is no development
plan. Therefore we probably need some·
thing of that kind in the Bill. I
should be inclined to feel that the best
thing to do would be to leave it at that,
and possibly we might be able to consider whether or not that is the direction'
in which this Clause ought to be
redrafted.
On the wider issue. I am still worried
about the position. The right hon.
Gentleman did not really answer the
question about what weight will be
attached to an application for planning
permission which, although not contrary
in itself to good planning, is not reasonable in terms of what a prudent man
would do. That is a point we ought to
look at later when we examine the
Clauses in detail.
Where the possibility of the use of
land is so remote that it does not get
into the development plan, and this
situation has only arisen because of
public need, I should have thought that
on the whole the fairest and most sensible
227
TOWI! and Coulltry
11 DECEMBER 195H
thing would be to say that we will look
at the land as it is, in terms of the
existing plan, apply the yardstick of what
permission is allowed under the plan, and
stick to that. If there is no development
permission allowed under the planning,
then the owner will get the existing use
value. We would not be much worse
off because what I cannot understand
about the open market is what are its
dimensions. Is the open market value
the value which the willing buyer would
pay now under the assumption of
development now, or do we look ahead
and say what might be the market value
in the future if development in pther
dIrections has advanced?
I do not know the answer, because I am
not a valuer. We do not se~m to h.ave
our tame valuer With us thiS morn1Og,
unfortunately, and I would like to know
exactly how far we look ahead in fix10g
open market value to future development
. or how far we look at the Situation m
. the I1ght of what clrcUl~stances a buy~r
would want to lock up hiS money now m
re~ard to some future. development whIch
mIght happen If the situation changed.
Mr. MitchisoD : May I try to summarise
the two matters that have occurred to me
on this subsection? The first is «ally
the question asked by the hon. Gentleman
the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and
I think it is the same one as we were
trying to raise earlier on subsection (2).
The point is that it is not even a case
of the seller choosing which of the planning permissions suits him best. As I
see it, they are cumulative. He gets the
benefit of every assumption which he can
possibly get within the terms of the Bill.
.Accordingly, if we take this case and there
is an assumption to be made on the certificate, he will get that in addition to any
assumption he may be entitled to make
under subsection (2), which we have
passed, and under Clause 3 to which we
are coming. Therefore. the more assump·
tions there are, the more cases there are
to which they apply. the better for the
seller and the worse for the local autho·
rity or the acquiring authority. I feel
that we must consider in relation to this
subsection whether this is DOt too wide an
application of a certificate of assumed
permissions.
The second point I will put rather
differently in my own language; although
it is the one my hon. Friend has just been
Plantling Bill
228
raising. If it is not too heretical to men·
tion the Uthwatt Committee in connection
with town and country planning, and if
it does not shock the modern Tory Party
too much to do so, I would remind them
that the Uthwatt Committee, when considering this kind of problem, pointed oUI
clearly that the job of the valuer was nol
only to deal with what takes the form
here of assumed permissions but also to
estimate probabilities. One of my troubles
in this Bill-and it arises not only on this
subsection but also in other parts of th~
Bill-is that there is no clear indication
on this point.
I will take my hon. Friend's point and
give the right hon. Gentleman a homely
instance. The question of applying for
compensation for development values
under the 1947 Act arose in Carradale in
Scotland, where I live. I can assure the
hon. Gentleman that we all foresaw hotels
on our land, ,golf courses in legion, boarding houses, enormous and stately buildings, and what not. The question that
any valuer had to consider in relation
to those was not only the floating value
question of the chances of an hotel
alighting on a particular piece. of land,
but also the more general questIon of !he
chances of an hotel or a golf course be10g
there at all.
If we enlarge the area from that of a
sma·1l village to that of a whole country.
the substantial question still remains that
any development plan. and consequently
any assumed planning permissions, and
any planning .permissions to be assumed
in connection with the issue of the certificate. must be discounted by the
element of probability. and apart from
the question that in practice that discounting is not fully done under ·this form
of valuation, there is still that substantial question. One of the main faults in
the Bill and in this subsection is that
.there is no clear indication that the valml'
tion must have regard not merely to planning permissions but to the likelihood
lhat those planning permissions would result in anything.
There will be development plans all
over the country and they will contain
various vague uses. They will contain
other more specific uses and a certificate
will, no doubt. be one of the more specific
forms. But even when it is certified that
a particular use will be possible, how is
the valuer to discount the probability
229
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COM MONS
[MR. M ITCHISON.]
element? Substantially the same difficulty is bound to arise in dealing with
development value at all, the one that
arose in practice under the Silkin Act.
For political reasons the Silkin Act
was misrepresented and quite unnecessarily abused. I am not here to enter
into a long discussion about i,t today;
I would be out of order in doing so. All
I point out is that it is the question which
lay at the bottom of any difficulty under
the Silkin Act, which lies at the bottom
of this Bill, and which is clearly indicated by this subsection. Applied to this
subsection it comes to this; why assume
that planning permission would be
granted in accordance with the ,terms of
a cenificate without at the same time
indicating that the granting of planning
permission does not in .the least necessitate the following out of that planning
permission ,by the building of something
on the land or by the actual development for which permission is given?
I hope I have made my two points
clear to the right hon. Gentleman. This
is in one way a very important Amendment. In another way it has the char·
acter of probing. I do not know what
my hon. Friend proposes to do about it.
but we shall have to consider the matter
seriously, not only in the light of what is
said on this subsection. but as regards
such further elucidation as we can get
later from ,the right hon. Gentleman. For
ihat reason. and owing to the structure
of the Bill, we may not be able to do
all we would wish to do at this stage. and
we shall have to return to the matter
later.
Mr. Brooke : There is not a great deal
more that can be said at this stage on
the general principle. but if 1 can help
the Committee further, I will gladly do
so. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 have a common
link. as my hon. Friend the Member for
Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out. and if I
may try to put it in words of almost one
syl1ableMr. Mitchison: I do not see why the
right hon. Gentleman should look at me
in that nasty way when he says that.
Mr. Brooke : --{)f almost one syllable,
I will endeavour--{HoN. MEMBERS:
"Try."]-I will try, and I must not
.. summarise." I must "set out" the
points with which these Clauses deal.
Planning Bill
230
What we are trying to do is to arrive
at-Mr. Mitchison : .. Reach."
Mr. Brook.: -a figure for market
value in circumstances where the market
value cannot be directly ascertained because the land is being withdrawn from
any possibility of being put up for sale
in the open market through a public
authority having to declare its intention
to acquire it compulsorily.
The first case is the simple one where
planning permission has already been
granted.
Clearly the market value
should take account of that planning permission. The second case. which we considered at length under subsection (2) of
this Clause. was where no planning per·
mission had, up to that stage. been
granted. There the Bill said that in
arriving at the market value one should
assume that planning permission was
granted for the specific development
which the public authority intended to
carry out.
It is clear that if one stopped there one
would not be adequately defining market
value. Market value. as we all know,
takes some account of what is said in
development plans, and therefore we
come on to Clause 3, which indicates what
assumptions should be made in arriving
at market value when the development
plan states specifically this or that about
the land.
Even ,that does not get us to the end
of the story because. as I explained
earlier on this Amendment, there are at
any rate three types of case where one
cannot make any definite assumption just
by looking at ,the development plan.
Those three cases are where the land is
designated or allocated for some specific
use. but a use which does not carry any
market value with it. The second is the
case where ,the land ,is not designated or
a'1Iooated in the development plan for any
particular development. and the ,third is
the case ,where ,the development plan has
not yet 'been approved.
12.30 p.m.
There is, ,therefore, a build·up between
Clauses 2. 3 and 4. but there is no buildup ,that at any point takes one beyond
market value. One is simply trying to
get at the figure at which land would
cha.nge hands as between a willing seller
Town and Country
Planning Bill
11 DECEMBER 1958
232
and a willing buyer, if ,there were no ask my hon. Friends at this stage to throw
question of compulsory acquisition. It out the w.hole of this idea until we have
is necessary ,to deal with these different looked at it in rather more detail. I beg
classes of case in three Clauses if one is 10 ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
to bring an element of certainty.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
The other course of action would be
Mr. Silverman : I beg to move in page
to scrap all this and just leave it ,to the
3,
line 39, at the end to insen:
Lands Tribunal. I submitted to the
..
(6) Where in accordance with this and the
Committee ,that it .would not be right for
following section it is to be assumed that
Parliament to do that, as it would be next
planning permission would be granted, the
putting too great a responsibility on the assumption shall be that planning permission
Tribunal. It is well known that the would be granted subject to such conditions (if
Lands Tribunal itself ,is already over- any) as, in the circumstances of each case
might reasonably be expected to be imposed by
burdened with work. T.he .right eourse the
authority granting the permission."
for a responsible Commi.ttee of the
Mr. Brooke: I wonder if it would be
House is to go through these classes and
seek thereby to give to those who will possible to discuss this with the later
have the eventual·task of valuing ,the land Amendment to Clause 3?
as clear an indication as possible of the
The Chairman: I am obliged to the
assumptions that ougbt to be made- righ·t 'hon. Gentleman. Per.haps we may
assumptions which I say straightaway
also discuss the Amendmen't on page 5,
will not, ·as hon. -Members opposite seem line 25, leave out subsection (6).
to think, always enlarge the value of the
land. They may equally be limiting
Mr. Silvennao : This Amendment proassumptions, 'but we should not run away poses to r<>move <wha t J consider to be
from the matter.
an anomaly;n the treatment of these cases
under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. Clause 4 (5)
Mr. Silverman: How?
says ·that where ,ohe process of certification
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member asks applies there is this provision:
how. If we go into the details of this we
.. Where, in the opinion of the local planning
are bound to start discussing parlicular authority, planning permission might reasonAmendments to Clauses 3 and 4. I have ably have been expected to bc granted as
mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)
simply been setting down in general of
the last preceding subsection, but would
terms what Clauses 2, 3 and 4 seek to have been granted subject to conditions, the
deal with. I do not think on !-his Amend- certificate shall specify those conditions. in
ment any more detailed or practical ques- addition to the other matters required to be
tion arises than that I am grateful to contained in the certificate."
We see here that 'where the process of
you. Sir Robert, for permitting me to indicate how these three Clauses fit in certification applies under Clause 4 the
planning permission can be limited by
together.
conditions which are specified iby t~e
Mr. MacColI : If I may summarise my planning authority. In the prev.ious two
hon. Friend's summary of my summary Clauses there is no such limi·tation ; vhat
as a discussion, what we feel is that there is to say, ·where the value of the land
is possibly a case to deal with transitional is determined Iby the purpose for which
difficulties, that in general one of the the acquiring authority requires it, or
factors whioh would enter into the open where the land is subject to the Third
market is the behaviour of the planning Schedule of the 1947 Act, or alternatively
authority and of pUblic authorities. But w,hen It here .is a comprehensive redevelopthe weakness of !-his proposal is that one ment plan, or the land is allocated mainly
can to some extent force the hand of the for a specific IPUrpOse, either residential
planning authoriry and make them give or industrial, no such limitation is or can
hypothetical planning permissions in very be ·applied. Consequently, in those cir,hypothetical circumstances. T'hat is not cumstances the landowner gets the land,
going to 'work out very effectively. How- subject to no limitations, even ,if 1he
ever, we will obviously 'have to examine plan were applied.
with care the various classes. That would
create an interesting deba\e, when we
That seems to me to be an anomaly as
return strengthened and refreshed after between Clauses 2, 3 and 4. This Amendthe Recess. and it would not ·be right to ment proposes to remove that anomaly
231
233
TownalldCountry
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. SILVERMAN.]
and to pro-videlhat ,where there would
reasonably have ,been limitations imposed
by ,the plann.ing authorities they should
~pply to Clauses 2 -and 3, as it applies
to certification. l'he anomaly arises out
of the difference in treatment of this land
under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. These matters
could have /been more logically and equit·
ably dealt -with if the process of certifica·
tion applied to all these cases and if the
planning authority certified what would
'have lInen the use and the limitations of
~his land,
However, accepting the present position, this Amendment simply proposes to
remove this particular anomaly and to
provide I;milations in Clauses 2 or 3. To
give a practical illustration, suppose one
gets the acquhing authority acqUiring the
land for the purpose of a housing estate.
Obviously itwould apply certain planning
to the housing estate; it would provide
for a certain density, for building to a
certain height, and there would be other
provisions a5 to open space and comprehensive planning. While the local authority
would apply that, it would be assumed,
as far as the private developer is con~
cerned, that this was just housing land
subject to 10 limitations, and therefore
the value ne would obtain would be a
value unlimited by any such considerations.
<Jb\iously that is unfair and
unreasonable, and would give the person
to wbom Clauses 2 or 3 applied a benefit
that he "ould not get if he came under
Clause 4. The benefit he would get
would be a benefit for which either the
ratepayen or the taxpayers would have
to pay. That is an unfair advantage and
th;s AnendIllent proposes a new subsec·
tion to remove that anomaly.
Mr. Rro()~e : I think ·the hon. Member
is acting p~feetJy reasonably in putting
down this Amendment for stimulating
discussion.
Mr. Silyerman: I put it forward for
the purp"'" of its being adopted.
Mr. Brooke: I was saying that if he
was put.tiog it forward for stimulating discussion~ it was a reasonable thing to do,
and I trust that when he has heard my
explana. tion he will realise it was not
necessary 10 press the Amendment.
because I Cln prove to him that it is not
:required.
Planning Bill
234
This Amendment would take these
particular words from a later Clause,
where they are applied to some particular
subsection, and extend them to apply to
certain other classes of case, two of those
classes in Clause 2 and one at the
beginning of Clause 3. The first class to
which he wants these words applied is
the class referred to in subsection (2) of
this Clause. But I am not sure whether
he realises that subsection (2) as drafted
-and I tried to make this clear when we
were discussing the atomic power station
-does not say that a general and unlimited planning permission is to be
assumed for any sort of development like
that which the planning authority is going
to do.
H he will look at Clause 2, subsection
(2), lines 39 to 42, he will see how closely
drafted those words are:
" ... it shall be assumed that planning permission would be gramed . . . . such as
would permit development thereof in accordance with the proposals of the acquiring
authority."
That is not a general planning permission
and I do not think he would improve
the situation by seeking further to define
it and to set limits on the extent of the
planning permission which is to be
assumed. beyond those limits which are
set by the wording of that Clause. The
fact is that it does not, in those circumstances, appear to provide for any
assumption about conditions.
Mr. Silvennan: But this is not so
closely drawn that it does not provide
that the owners shall be compensated on
any use which comes within the general
use of land for the purpose for which the
local authority intends to use it. That
is why I confined the example I gave not
to any question of a school or an atomic
power station but to the purpose which
is frequently likely to occur, where the
local authority gels this for building
houses. Presumably under those circumstances the owner of the land could obtain
compensation on anything which comes
within the range of house building. There
is no limitation of that.
Mr. Brooke : I am advised that the hon.
Member is mistaken there. These words
in subsection (2) mean exactly what they
say.. such as would permit development thereof
in accordance with the proposals of the
acquiring authority"-
235
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
and not in accordance with someone else's
proposals that might have been made in
different circumstances. If the proposals
of the acquiring authority are vague,
further inquiries may have to 'be made to
ascertain what the proposals really are.
I am sure that the hon. Member from his
knowleda' of the ·Iaw realises that in the
last resort if the authority refuses to dis·
close details, the rules of the Lands Tribunal enable it to require the party to
the case to produce the evidence of
further paniculars which the Lands Tribunal believes to be relevant if it is to
arrive at a proper valuation.
12.45 p.m.
The second case to which the hon.
Member wishes to apply these conditions
is in Clause 2 (3), where there is reference to the Third Schedule of the 1947
Act. He will surely accept that the statutory definition of existing use value by
the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act is
already detailed and well-established, and
I cannot see that we should make any
improvement by trying to modify what
everybody already understands by imponing some additional conditions.
The third case which he has in mind
-and I say at once that this is a more
complex matter-is Clause 3 (I). I must
refer to it, because the Amendment
would extend its effect to it.
Mr. Silverman: And subsection (2).
Mr. Brooke : If the hon. Member looks
at Clause 3 (6) he will see that it refers
to subsections (2), (3) and (4) but not to
subsection (I). Subsection (I) is a more
complex case. Where land is defined in
the development plan as the site of specified development the assumption that
planning permission would be granted for
that development is not limited to the
land being acquired, and therefore any
assumed conditions would not be limited
to that land.
We are now getting into very technical
matters, and I will re-examine Clause 3
(I) in the light of what I think the hon.
Member has in mind to see whether the
Bill is properly drafted. As for the two
subsections of Clause 2 to which the hon.
Member would like to apply these addi·
tional conditions, I can assure him that
I have gone very thoroughly into them
and that I am speaking to the Committee
in all sincerity when I say that I do
not think it necessary to accept the
Planning Bill
236'
Amendment or that there would be any
gain by accepting it.
Mr. Gibson: In a sense this touches
on the point which I was ·trying to raise
when I was out of order. I understand
that we are now discussing the Amend·
me"t in line 39 and also the Amendment
in Clause 3, line 25 to leave out subsection (6). That is the subsection permit·
ting the planning authority to Jay down
conditions when it gives a cenificate.
Apparently I am wrong and we are not
discussing that Amendment. Nevenheless. the Minister told us that my hon.
Friend's Amendment asking for powers
to lay down conditions is covered in
Clause 3 (6).
Will this power to lay down conditions
include making sure that when a certificate is granted, it is granted to a genuine
applicant and that it is not a requestand such things have happened in the past
-to obtain a planning permission which
could be exploited and without any intention to build? I know that in London, at
any rate, conditions have been attached
to planning permission such as a condition that a stan must be made on a
building within a certain period. Will
the subsection to which the Minister has
referred my hon. Friend permit conditions·
of that kind to be laid down when a
cenificate is granted? If not, there seems
to me to be no reality in it, and we ought
to press the Amendment.
Mr. Sparks: May I reinforce the
remarks of my hon. Friend the Member
for Clapham (Mr. Gibson)? There is a
substantial difference between giving plan·
ning permission for development and the
conditions which the planning authority
might attach to it, and that difference is
very much greater in the case which the
Minister said he would consider at a later
stage.
Those conditions carry with them considerable variations and fluctuations in
what may be assumed to be the market
value of a piece of land. I have not
before me the list of uses contained in the
Third Schedule, but I should be very sur·
prised if in some of them a local authority
which gave a planning permission did not
want to attach certain conditions. As an
example, a planning permission might be
available to develop a site for housing
purposes, and there is a wide range of
237
Town and Country
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR, SPARKS,]
housing development which could be considered when the permission is being
granted. It might be a single house or.
as an extreme case, a ten to twenty·storey
block of flats. There would be a very
wide variation in the market value arising
from a planning permission. depending on
whether there was a condition attached to
the permission as to density or a condition
that only dwelling-houses should be built.
I do not suggest that that case arises here,
but I stress the important effect on values
which planning conditions have as distinct
from planning permission.
There are two things-a planning permission and the conditions attached to it.
Sometimes conditions are not attached
and sometimes they are, depending on the
circumstances. If the Minister is satisfied that in the two cases which he has
examined under Clause 2 the compensation to be paid by a local authority would
be based on the realistic permission, and
that any conditions are realistic in relation to what could be done on the site,
I shall be interested to ,hear him say so.
As my hon, Friend the Member for
Clapham has pointed out, an individual
might well say. " I want to put a twentystorey block of flats here ", but for many
reasons he may not in fact intend to do
it. If he could get planning permission
for a twenty-storey block of flats on that
site, when the reasonable thing to do
would be to approve a use for a dwelling
house and not a block of flats, the value
of the compensation which the local
authority would be expected to pay would
be much greater.
The Minister has said that he is satisfied that this will not arise in the first
MId second cases which he mentioned, but
will he look again at the uses in the Third
Schedule to make certain that that situation would not arise? We are glad to
know that he is prepared to look at the
third case mentioned, because the conditions attached to planning permission
are of considerable importance in
determining the compensation which a
local authority would have to pay in such
cases.
Mr. Mitcbison : I am sorry to sound a
little ungrateful in view of what the right
hon. Gentleman said, but it seems to me
that on any showing this is an Amendment
that could not possibly do harm, I think
it applies to rather more thMl the right
Planning Bill
238
hon, Gentleman suggests, but whether it
does or not, it is a very reasonable provision to include, if only as a precaution.
May I give one or two cases? The
kind of conditions which I have in mind
are mainly conditions about time, be it
the time of commencing a building or
the time during which it may remain on
the site. Of course, there are other conditions. Since we have been talking about
them so much, let us consider the atomic
energy factories. One piece of relevant
land might be that on which an atomic
energy factory is to be built. There
might be other pieces of land around the
factory for which planning permission
about building would be given only conditionally after an experimental period,
perhaps with limitations of a safety
character on the type of building which
might be put there. Although I think
that what would ,be given, whether with
or without those conditions, would fall
within the language of subsection (2), if
there is to be no reference to conditions
we might get a misleading result.
What seems to me to be the difficulty
about the suggestion which might be
made-that all this can be left ,to common
sense~is that in Clause 3 we have included a specific provision about conditions and have limited it to three subsections. A court called upon to apply it
to other subsections might find itself in
this difficulty: "Here is an express provision relating to three subsections. Can
we infer it in other subsections in relation to which there is no express condidon?" One has to consider, in effect,
that if such an Amendment as this is not
included we shall be excluding conditions, or running the risk of excluding
conditions, from those subsections which
are not included in Clause 3 (6).
May I take one other type of condi·
tion? I refer to these cases about what
are called, for short, ancillary development-the development in the Third
Schedule to the 1947 Act. I put it quite
generally to save time. It seems to m.
that these are the types of case in which
conditions are very likely to be implied,
and in so far as we are dealing with them
at all, we should not shut the door to a
consideration of conditions.
Turning to subsection (5), I have been
looking at the certification provisions in
Clause 4. Without going into themfor that would be out of order-I suggesl
239
Town and Country
11 DECEMBER 1958
that they do not make it clear that the
appropriate certificate might be a cenifi·
cate with conditions attached, and I am
not at all clear that they allow for the
issue of a certificate such as would
240
It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN
adjourned the Committee without Queslion put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
corre~
spond with reality and would contain
conditions.
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS
Grimston. Sir R. (Chairman)
Balniel, Lord
Bevins. IMr.
Biggs-Oavison, Mr.
Blenkinsop, Mr.
Brooke. Mr,
Butler, Mrs.
Cole, Mr.
Corfield. Mr.
du Cann, Mr.
Gibson, Mr.
Gurden, Mr.
Harrison, Colonel
Hill, Mrs.
Holt, Mr.
Irvine, Mr. A. J.
Johnson. Or. O.
Planning Bill
Committee adjourned until Tuesday.
16th December, at half-past Ten o'clock,
AITENDED THE COMMITTEE:
Johnson, Mr. E.
Lindgren, Mr.
MacColl, Mr.
Mdnnes, Mr.
Macpherson. Mr. N.
Mitchison, Mr.
Nicolson, Mr. N.
Page, Mr.
Powell, Mr.
Probert, Mr.
Ramsden, Mr.
Silverman, Mr. J.
Skeffinglon, Mr.
Sparks, Mr.
Temple. Mr.
Willis, Mr.