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.
106/126 (page 78)
![road, which seemed to us to lead to the conclusion that on the whole the best available course at the moment would be to define it in some such terms as are in- dicated here. An alternative would be definitely to put a limit in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Yon will recollect in the previous little note which we sent round, we pointed out that the cost per yard on the frontager—not per yard run—might vary from something like 12s. 6d. to about 30s. L think. Mr. Wrottesley suggested that it might be rather on the low side. It would, of course, be possible to put in a maximum. Chairman. 3. ‘Where there is a single frontage, the cost would be £3 a yard. That 30s. means if you have a double frontage, does it notP—Yes. 4. So that in this case which Captain Bourne raised this morning where you have a road with two sides and a single frontage, the cost would be £3?—iWe were thinking here in terms of an ordinary private street, so it would be £3 per yard run, 30s. on the individual frontager. Mr. Tyldesley Jones. 5. That is for a 15-in. sewer, is not it? —That is for the big sewer, a 15-in. sewer. Possibly a figure of something like £1 or 25s. might be appropriate as a maximum figure, but it is open to the obvious objection that as prices vary it tends to become out of date. It would be conceivable, I suppose, to have a provision in the Bill that some authority, the Minister or some other authority, might by order vary this maximum in accordance with the trend of prices, but that is not a very easy proposition. On the whole it seems to us that probably the cost of a 9-in. sewer in terms de- scribed here was the best way to meet that difficulty. Sir Henry Canitley. 6. Did you say: ‘“‘ not exceeding ’’, or did you say it should be a definite sum? If you had a definite sum, it would avoid all proceedings before Magistrates, and everything like that. If it is ‘‘ not ex- ceeding ’’? it would still leave the diffi- culty of what was the actual cost?—It is very difficult to make a frontager pay more than the actual cost. One would probably choose a figure which would be, -in nine cases out of ten, well within the actual cost; if he could show the actual cost. was less than any figure, it is diffi- cult to ask for more than that. Mr. Wrottesley. 7. That could be done by apportioning and saying that the total recovered is not to exceed the total cost of the sewer? —The total cost of the sewer on this 9 in. basis. Mr. Wrottesley. 8. That would meet that point ?—Yes, that is what I pictured. Chairman. 9. The point is that you would take a 9-in, sewer, we will say, as the maximum, and the frontager when he develops a frontage would then pay the cost of a 9-in. sewer, irrespective of what sewer was laidP—Yes, and I picture that you would do it in this way. The sewer to be laid is for a length of two miles, we will assume. You would proceed to work out the cost of a 9-in. sewer laid under normal conditions for two miles, and then the proportion of any frontager would be his proportion of frontage to two miles. That would mean, of course, if you were exempting the developed land, then as regards the proportion represented by developed land, the ratepayers would pay that. Sir Henry Cautley. 10. That brings in, does it not, the assumption that it is to be a builder’s road, and not a road existing to-day ?— Yes, I was assuming that. 11. Would it not be possible to make the calculation for all the country, and to put in a definite sum? ‘We are making a new code. It seems to me to simplify matters enormously. In both cases it is not going to be the actual cost of a sewer; it is to be the actual cost of a supposed sewer?—I understand we are thinking in terms of local legislation now, not in terms of a public Bill. You mean it might be possible to find a sum which would ‘be appropriate to any local Act? Sir Henry Cautley. 12. Yes, from the point of view of sim- plicity?’—Frankly I should not like to express a very definite opinion on that, without consulting engineers. Sir Henry Cautley.] I say that because I have arrived at the view that taking the existing cost. would not be a practic- able basis. So many of the roads that](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0106.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
