Report by the Joint committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on public sewers (contributions by frontagers) : together with the proceedings of the committee and minutes of evidence and speeches delivered by counsel.
- Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on Public Sewers
- Date:
- 1936
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Report by the Joint committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on public sewers (contributions by frontagers) : together with the proceedings of the committee and minutes of evidence and speeches delivered by counsel. Source: Wellcome Collection.
105/126 (page 77)
![20° Mati, 1936.] and, in fact, the sewerage here has to be adapted to the particular estates. It has to vary in size, gradient or depth, according to the nature of the locality which it has to serve. Mr. Wrottesley.| Shall I deal with Section 64 now? Chairman.| We would like to have a few words in private before luncheon. en Section 62, and after lunch deal with Section 64. Mr. Wrottesley.| Would it be wrong to make one observation on my lIcarned friend’s speech P [ Continued. Chairman.] Please do. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| L shail not cbject. Mr. Wrottesley.] He starts with this, and I suggest that it is fallacious, that in no event must any part cf the cost of this sewer fall on the ratepayar. That is as if, instead of having a section in the Public Health Act, saying that they were to provide sewers, you had a sec- tion to say that in no event is any wart of the cost to fall on the ratepayers. I do not agree to that. Lord Macmillan.| That is a good point to leave with us. Chairman.| We did our best in your absence, but we have not been able to get quite all the help we want. We thought it would be desirable if we asked the Ministry of Health representative to come and give us the views of the Min- istry, and tell us what they thought. We will ask you to give us your com- ments thereédn afterwards. Chairman. 1. Perhaps you will elaborate your Re- port. I think that is the best way of dealing with it?—I do not think [I have very much to say beyond what is in this Memorandum. This Memorandum was definitely limited to the Section 62 clause, on the ground that that was the only clause under discussion. 2. We are dealing only with that now? —I need not go into the first paragraph on the first page; that merely indicates that it has been the considered view of the Department that the Private Street Works Code has proved a _ satisfactory code for its own purposes. It has been and is the considered view of the Depart- ment that the Private Street Works Code has, on the whole, worked reason- ably well, and is accepted as an equitable solution of the ‘problem, between the frontagers, the owners, and the rate- payers, for private street purposes. Con- sequently in considering the Romford clauses and similar clauses, we have turned our attention not to the question whether the Private Street Works Code is in itself right, but to whether and to what extent and under what conditions it is applicable to these roads repairable by the inhabitants at large. Then we have set out what has been the practice of the Department for several years; perhaps I need not bother to read that; it is an extract from the Annual Report on page 2. Undoubtedly the Department has encouraged—I may put it a httle more strongly, perhaps-- it has almost insisted on local authori- ties making an attempt to secure from the frontagers part of the cost of the sewers, for the reasons set out there. As regards paragraph 3 of the Memorandum, it is there suggested that, on the whole, the view of the Department is that the best way of achieving a reasonably simple clause that would be fair to the frontagers would be to adopt the suggestion which has already been made, that the basis of charge should be the cost of a 9 inch. sewer laid in the locality in a private street at a standard depth. JI think we contemplate that the standard depth would be actually stated in terms of X feet in the Bill. Of course, we do not conceal the difficulties about this. It is very difficult to say what is the standard depth in any locality; it varies enormously, according to the lie of the land, the sewerage system, and so on. Frankly, my own view is that before Parliament is invited to pass. public legis- lation on this subject, the whole thing would require a great deal of investiga- probably with the help of engineers and so forth. The difficulty we feel about clauses on ‘the lines of the Coventry clause is the difficulty of saying what the unit is in terms of a street. There is the difficulty that Captain Bourne referred to of the additional cost involved in breaking up a highway repairable, not necessarily a concrete street, but a high- way repairable ascompared witha builder’s](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0105.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
