§ Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 11, line 25, leave out from second "if" to end of line 28 and insert:
- "(a) the location, width or level of the carriageway is altered (otherwise than by re-surfacing); or
- (b) an additional carriageway is provided for the highway beside, above or below an existing one;
§ Mr. Graham PageI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is intended that depreciation caused by the noise of traffic on the whole width of a widened length of carriageway should qualify for compensation. The amendment ensures, first, that the claim is only in respect of noise coming from the widened road and not from traffic noise generated by the widened part of a road somewhere far off, the traffic later passing the claimant's property, and, secondly, that the claim can relate to all the traffic on the widened road, even if part of it was there before—that is to say, if a two-lane road is extended onto a three-lane road. One is dealing with the noise from the whole of the traffic.
This seems a common sense way of dealing with the situation. It is a matter which gave us considerable discussion in Committee, but I hope that we have now solved it to hon. Members' satisfaction.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.
§ Mr. MulleyOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A great number of these amendments are wholly drafting. It might be convenient and save your time if they were grouped in one Question. Very often they repeat themselves. Perhaps we might proceed until a Minister or and hon. Member wishes to make an observation.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall try to group them as much as I can.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.