The Gazette 1974

the works were carried out. We quote from the Majority Report at page 19, paragraph 38 : "Compensation assessed on this basis would not therefore include anything for the development potential which the works carried out by the Local Authority have created. In this way the increase in price caused by Local Authority works would accrue to the Local Authority which would get the benefit of it by selling the lands at their full market price or by letting them at the economic rent. This method is usually called recoupment because the Local Authority are recouped for some part of the gross cost of the work which they have carried out by the profit which they make on the sale or letting. Recoupment as a principle had not. been adopted at all in Ireland and in Britain, when the Uthwatt Committee reported; it had been restricted to cases where roads, streets and bridges had been con- structed or widened." The Majority Report does not seem to examine this suggestion in further detail and we feel- it is a sugges- tion which merits further examination. Could it not be suggested that the Planning Authori- ties power should be extended to enable them to designate future areas for development with the right of compulsory acquisition of any part of the land so designated on the basis that the owners of the lands should be paid the full market value of them less what in the opinion of the Valuers or Assessors is the en- hanced value by reason of the lands being serviced or about to be serviced within the next five to ten years. Far more difficult valuations have to be made from time to time than would be involved in deducting from the full market value the enhanced value by reason of the actual services being there or likely to be there within the next five to ten years. The difficulty in assessing the value on this basis would be no more complicated than the job of any other Arbitration Tribunal as at present operating. In this way the owners of the land would get what would be a fair price having regard to the nature of their lands (e.g. whether the lands were easy to develop or whether they enjoyed special amenities—all the factors that go to making up the price of land) and at the same time would not exploit to their financial advantages the services provided or to be provided by the Local Authority. The owner would receive the enhanced value due to inflation and general urbanisa- tion (where this is relevant) but would not be asked to accept the completely artificial value of usage plus the magic 25% proposed by the Majority. We appreciate that there may be constitutional diffi- culties attendant on this proposal, but if so, we would hope that they would be less problematic than those

posed by the Majority Report. We also appreciate that we are not aware of the arguments put forward to the Uthwatt Committee in favour of and against the scheme we have been discussing. We mention it merely as one deserving of further attention and to prevent our submission being too negative in nature. We also appreciate that while these proposals should keep the price of building land within bounds in trans- actions between Vendor and Local Authority (with the attendant benefits in subsequent transactions be- tween the Local Authority and third parties), they may not necessarily keep down the price of building land in transactions between private persons. This is a weakness to which even the majority proposals are prone (as the minority have pointed out) and would appear to be impossible to overcome unless there was absolute certainty that the Local Authority would acquire all building land in a designated area including that for which planning permission has been granted. The principal advantage in the proposal would be that the increase in the value of land attributable to the decisions and operations of Local Authorities would be secured for the benefit of the Community and without the total elimination of the open market value prin- ciple in compensation. Both the Majority and Minority Reports suggest a number of legal changes in our Planning Law and in our Law relating to compulsory acquisition. Certain of the proposed changes already appear in the recent Planning Bill and the others deserve serious and detailed examination. We would certainly welcome a modernization of the Compulsory Acquisition code so as to give Local Authorities a more expeditious method of acquiring lands and paying for them. However, we are very much against the recommenda- tion of both the Majority and the Minority that mem- bers of the public should be freely able to obtain infor- mation of the price at which property changed hands. There is far too much invasion of privacy at the present day without extending it and we think that the suggestion of the Majority Report that the public should be able to find out what prices have been paid for land is unwarranted and unnecessary. A purchaser should be entitled, if he so wishes, to keep private from the world at large the cost of a land acquisition. Such a desire for privacy is deeply embedded in human nature and we see no reason why it should be dis- turbed.

Signed on behalf of the Committee : John Mathews Anthony Dudley S. Millington Anthony Twomey

276