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

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