Final answer:
The validity of Jones mortgaging Parcel B without consent depends on the specific requirements of the Planning Act. Additional information on the act's stipulations regarding consent for transactions, including mortgages, is necessary to determine if the transaction is valid.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legality of the transaction involving the mortgage of Parcel B without consent joins on the specific requirements of the Planning Act in question. When Smith conveyed Parcel B to Jones with consent, that initial transaction was within the boundaries of the law. However, the subsequent action of Jones mortgaging Parcel B to the bank without consent may not be valid, depending on whether the Planning Act requires consent for such a transaction. The act of mortgaging a property can sometimes be seen as a change in the use or development of that property, which might require planning consent, particularly if there are restrictions imposed on the deed or land title from the initial transfer.
Without additional information on the specific Planning Act and its requirements regarding consent for changes in land transactions, including mortgages, it is challenging to determine the validity of the mortgage. If consent is a requisite for all transactions, including a change of use or mortgages, and this was not obtained, then it may not be a valid transaction. If, on the other hand, the Planning Act does not require consent for subsequent transactions like mortgages, then Jones's action might be considered valid. Further information on the terms of the Planning Act is therefore crucial to a definitive answer.