Member

It took me a while to get my head around Amendment 211, but the higher spend of Natural England after compulsorily purchasing something would demonstrate that the contract offered to the owner had indeed been underpriced and the owner had been quite correct to reject it. In other words, compulsory purchase was wrongly used as the site owner had not been made a reasonable offer to take on the contract. Where such sharp practice occurs, the site owner should have the land returned to them or at least be compensated. Amendment 211 is a probing amendment. I support it and I will be very interested to see how the Minister chooses to respond to it.