SECTION 7.
(1) Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the making of a town planning scheme shall, if he make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme, not being less than three months after the date when notice of the approval of the scheme is published in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, be entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof.
(2) A person shall not be entitled to obtain compensation under this section on account of any building erected on, or contract made or other thing done with respect to, land included in a scheme, after the date of the resolution of the local authority to prepare or adopt the scheme, or after the date when such resolution takes effect as the case may be, or after such other time as the Minister may fix for the purpose.
Provided that this provision shall not apply as respects any work done before the date of the approval of the scheme for the purpose of finishing a building begun or of carrying out a contract entered into before such date or other time as aforesaid.
(3) Where, by the making of any town planning scheme, any property is adjudged by the Commissioners of Valuation to be increased in value, the responsible authority, if they make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme (not being less than three months after the date when notice of the ap-approval of the scheme is first published in the manner prescribed by the regulations made by the Minister), shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value one-half of the amount of that increase.
(4) Any question as to whether any property is injuriously affected or increased in value within the meaning of this section, and as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which is to be paid as compensation under this section or which the responsible authority is entitled to recover from a person whose property is increased in value, shall be determined by the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the Minister, unless the parties agree, with the sanction of the Minister, on some other method of determination.
(5) Any amount due under this section as compensation to a person aggrieved from a responsible authority or to a responsible authority from a person whose property is increased in value may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
(6) Where a town planning scheme is revoked by an order of the Minister under this Act, any person who has incurred expenditure for the purpose of complying with the scheme shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this section in so far as any such expenditure is rendered abortive by reason of the revocation of the scheme.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (1), lines 46-47. To delete the words " when notice of the approval of the scheme is published " and to substitute therefor the words " when notice of the intention of a local authority to put the scheme in force with regard to the property of that person has been published."
This is to provide that in cases where compensation may arise the date in the matter shall not be the date when notice of the approval of the scheme is published, but when notice of the authority to put the scheme in force is published. Notice of approval of a scheme might be published in 1930, for instance, but the property concerned would not be affected until 1940, as the scheme might be one which might take a generation or a generation and a half to complete.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Colonel Moore
On behalf of Senator Linehan I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words " from the responsible authority."
The sub-section gives a person whose property is injuriously affected the right to compensation, and the Senator wants to add " from the responsible authority."
It would be the responsible authority. I do not think the amendment is necessary, but there is no objection to it.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Colonel Moore
I move formally for Senator Linehan amendment 31:—
" In Section 7, sub-section (2), line 54. To delete the word " prepare or."
In sub-section (3) of Section 2 the local authority may by resolution decide to prepare a scheme of its own or adopt a scheme which somebody else has prepared. This section has reference to the date on which the local authority may prepare or adopt the scheme.
Does it not affect the date? He would have to " adopt " instead of " prepare or adopt"?
Would not that have the effect of stopping any local authority?
He wants it after the scheme is adopted.
As the Bill is drafted, when any local authority has decided to prepare a scheme any action towards building or making a contract after the decision of the local authority shall not be the subject of compensation. I think that is reasonable.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
Colonel Moore
I move formally for Senator Linehan amendment 32:—
" In Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section."
Amendment put, and declared lost.
I move amendment 33:—
Section 7, sub-section (3), line 62. To delete the word " Commissioners " and to substitute therefor the word " Commissioner."
That is a verbal alteration only.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
I move amendment 34:—
Section 7, sub-section (3), line 5, page 8. To delete the words " one-half " and to substitute therefor the words " three-fourths."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 35:—
Section 7, sub-section (4), line 7. To delete the words " or increased in value."
These words are unnecessary because of the fact that the Commissioner will be making a decision as to whether the valuation has been increased. We will take that decision to be sufficient without any question at a later stage of referring that decision to the Minister.
I wonder if that is wise. Supposing the Commissioner of Valuation says the property has increased in value to a certain extent and the owner disputes that fact it is then to be referred to an arbitrator. That arbitrator is only the arbitrator appointed by the Minister. Is that wise?
Ultimately is it not a single man who decides it?
In actual practice yes. If you appoint a Board of Arbitrators of three you give representations to the owners of property and the Commissioners of Valuation and you have an impartial Chairman. I think it saves a good deal of expense and trouble.
There is no appeal provided here.
There is never an appeal from an arbitrator unless he has gone beyond his powers as an arbitrator.
I think it would increase the cost.
The question is whether having given authority to the Commissioner to say whether property has been increased in value there is any necessity to leave that issue to be decided by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister when the right to appeal to the Court against a decision of the Commissioner already exists.
Apparently the section only applies to the case where he is injuriously affected.
I want to delete the words, " leaving the position that if the Commissioner says certain property has been increased in value an appeal against his decision shall be in the ordinary course to the Court."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 36:
Section 7, sub-section (4), lines 10-12. To delete all from the word " or " in line 10 to the word " value " in line 12 inclusive.
That is consequential.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Colonel Moore
I move for Senator Linehan amendment 37:
Section 7, sub-section (4), line 13. To delete the word " Minister " and to substitute therefor the words " Circuit Court Judge."
This means that the Minister shall not appoint but that the Circuit Court judge shall appoint an arbitrator. I do not think the amendment is important.
What facilities has the Circuit Court judge for deciding on a suitable person?
The Minister knows the proper persons to be appointed and it would be throwing a very unpleasant duty on the judge.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—" That Section 7 as amended stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.
