§ Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 13, after "apply" insert "(a)".
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is intended merely to construct formally paragraph (a) of the proviso.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 19, at end insert:
or
(b) if the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the acquisition would be the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated;
and where, if the notice to treat had extended to a part only of the relevant land, the amount of the compensation on the basis of existing use payable in respect of the relevant interest in so far as it subsisted in that part would have been the same whether or not the said subsection (4) operated, this section shall have effect as respects the acquisition of the relevant interest as if the notice to treat had extended only to the remainder of the relevant land.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I have already explained, this Amendment is designed to introduce in tidy form the element related to the case where the planning permission is already executed.
§ Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
§
Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 24, leave out from "constructed" to "a" in line 27 and insert:
there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is partly of a drafting nature and is partly intended to cure certain defects in the interrelation of Clauses 33 and 34. Hon. Members will remember that at present Clause 34 (3) says that Clauses 32 and 33 are not to apply. In fact, that is correct in the case of Clause 32, because in that case the purchaser gets the value for development. Under Clause 34, he gets the value of the land plus the value of permission to develop. But it is wrong to exclude Clause 33 because there may be cases where both Clauses ought to apply.
The instance which hon. Members will think of is that where the developer, after he has bought the land, changes his mind, gets permission for some new kind of development and carries out the work. In the form in which the Bill now stands he would not get any compensation, and that is clearly wrong.