Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning Bill – in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 1 Awst 1947.
Lords Amendments: In page 80, line I, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 81, and insert:
(2) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or in respect of any use of land, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged—
the determination, and any covenants or charges made or given in respect thereof, shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(3) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined as aforesaid, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged,—
(4) Where compensation is payable under Part III of this Act in consequence of any such order as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then in calculating for the purposes of the compensation any depreciation in the value of the land to which the order relates, or any other loss or damage sustained by a person interested in that land, regard shall be had to the foregoing provisions of this section and to anything done by the Board thereunder.
(5) Where compensation is payable under the said Part III in consequence of any such order as aforesaid, or where land is compulsorily acquired as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then if any sums have been paid to the Central Land Board by way of development charge in accordance with the determination referred to in those subsections, the Board shall pay the authority or person by whom compensation is payable in consequence of the order or, as the case may be, in respect of the compulsory acquisition, a contribution towards that compensation representing such proportion of the sums so paid by way of development charge as may be agreed between the Board and that authority or person, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Minister, to be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
(6) Subsection (3) of section twenty-one of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, and shall accordingly have effect as if the reference therein to the foregoing provisions of that section included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section; and any reference in this section to the compulsory acquisition of land shall be construed as including a reference to the acquisition of land by agreement by any authority or person who has power or can be authorised to acquire it compulsorily."
Before we pass from this Amendment we ought to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman explaining how this very large Amendment comes about, and the purpose which it is intended to serve. The House will see that the effect of it is to strike out page 80 of the Bill and about one-third of page 81. I cannot recollect whether this is one of the Clauses which were not discussed in this House owing to the operation of the Guillotine; but be that as it may, we are entitled to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of this Amendment, and the changes it proposes to effect.
If I understand these provisions correctly—and I do not feel any confidence that I do—the effect will be that where a determination has been made and where planning permission is revoked, the outstanding amount of the development charge which has not been paid will no longer be levied. If that is the position, does it mean that there is a premium on the payment of the development charge by instalments? As I see the proposal, if planning permission is revoked for one reason or another, or the land in respect of which there is planning permission is compulsorily acquired, the outstanding liability for development charge can be washed out when nothing has been done, and the owner of the land who has paid his development charge will have a right of getting that matter taken into account in assessing the compensation.
I should like to be quite certain that not merely will it be taken into account, but that the amount paid for development charge by the person concerned, which is not effective because of the revocation, will, in one way or another, be refunded to him. It seems wrong that where a man has had a development charge levied upon him which he must pay before he commences the development, and when he has paid it but planning permission is refused owing to a change of circumstances, he is to be deprived of what he has paid. If it is not returned to him, he gets no benefit from the payment. All he is told is that the payment will be taken into account in assessing the compensation. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman—I may have misread the Clause—at least say that he will give an assurance that words will be put in somewhere in this Measure to make sure that, in those circumstances, the amount paid by the individual in the way of a development charge will be returned to him?
This is very largely a redrafting and a rearrangement and a considerable improvement. I believe, but I am not certain, that this is a Clause which was not discussed in Committee. On the specific point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot give an undertaking that the actual amount paid by way of development charge will be refunded as such, in the case of revocation whenever the revocation may lake place. If he reflects, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect that. Suppose it took place 20 years later. It would then hardly be appropriate that the actual amount should be refunded. All one ought to do is to take into account the fact that the development charge had been paid and fix compensation with that in view.
Suppose it was paid the week before the revocation?
If one had paid the charge the week before, I should imagine that one ought to get it back. One must provide not for the case where the revocation is the week after, which I imagine would not be frequent. It would be much more frequent that something would have been done and some benefit would have been obtained by the developer from the development for a time. It may not be the actual development. It may be a user. The question might arise whether certain premises should be used for a certain purpose, and there might be a decision to revoke. The user of the premises might have had some value from the premises and it would be quite wrong to refund to him the actual amount paid. All one ought to do is to take into account what is paid and the use which has been made of the premises. Therefore, while not disagreeing in principle with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in a proper case there should be a complete refund, I ask him to bear in mind that there might be cases where a complete refund would not be the appropriate way of dealing with it.