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.
110/126 (page 82)
![20° Maii, 1936.] Mr, | Continued. of a considerable size standing in half an acre of ground would use it perhaps twice as much, or more. Captain Bourne.| I think we »ught to try to draft out clause to keep everybody like that out. Instead of saying ‘‘ No, you have got a loophole to get out of it’? we ought to try and prevent them being brought into it. Witness.| I suppose that point could be met by giving a discretion to the local authority? Captain Bourne.| That is my objection to the Town Planning idea, the change of user. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| Captain Bourne has in mind the proviso to it: ‘‘ Pro- vided that the use of the land ’’ for so and so ‘‘ shall not be deemed to be ”’ etc. Sir Henry Cautley.] That only applies to agricultural land? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| It is true the first one does, and the second does. I am only meaning that the scheme of the clause can be extended. Captain Bourne.| If we can avoid it, I would rather not see legislation by re- ference. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| I am not sug- gesting that, because I think you would have to write this out and possibly add to it. Sir Henry Cautley.] What Mr. Tyldesley Jones means is really to pre- pare another proviso dealing with Cap- tain Bourne’s point? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| Yes, not adapt- ing this scheme without consideration, but adapting this scheme and _ possibly adding to it other things which ought to be excluded. That was my suggestion. It does provide a scheme; it is adapt- ing the scheme to the clause and saying you have excluded every use which does not amount to a development. Witness.| I am not sure what Captain Bourne’s remarks were addressed to. Was he contemplating the sort of thing suggested, namely, that developed land should come under the charge and be treated as re-developed if it became used for building purposes? Because I shouid have thought that would not have caught the cricket ground case, Sir Henry Cautley. 30. If you had adopted the definition of ‘‘ Development ”’ in the Town Plan- ning Act.—t was rather getting away from that. I was rather suggesting an alternative to that. 31. —Which might be done by en- larging the provisoPp—Would not it be better to say in effect ‘‘ Land which is developed at the date when the Bill receives the Royal. Assent is to be exempt from this charge unless and until it becomes re-developed, and by ‘re-developed’ we mean, developed for building purposes ’’P Chairman. 32. What exactly does ‘‘Developed for building purposes’’ mean? JDoes that mean that you have a bit of land and you divide it up into plots but do not build on it; you put up notices ‘‘ Build- ing land for sale’’?—I should have thought not. I should have thought there had to be actual development. 33. Not until you actually build the houses?—Yes. I should have thought that if you had a large 100-acre field and you sold it for building purposes in plots, and half an acre was sold and a house was built on that, it would be fairly clear that that half an acre was being developed for building purposes, and the rest not: that is what one wants to achieve. 34, There is no way which you can devise in which when that half acre is built upon the payment should take place when the house is connected with the sewer?—The difficulty about that has been put by various people, I think. Of course from a public health point of view that is not a very satisfactory solution, because it puts a premium on not connecting with the sewer. Chairman.] I think they should be obliged to connect with the sewer, and then pay. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| We cannot com- pel them under the existing law? Chairman.] No, it, Witness. Then you get into questions of distance P but we can change Sir Henry Cautley. 35. You can prosecute them for a nuisance, surely?—Yes. JI think Mr. Wrottesley made that point, but there is in practice a world of. difference between being able to prosecute success- fully for a nuisance, and having perhaps a large area where everybody knows that drainage arrangements are very un- satisfactory. If there are actually sewers under the roads it would be, to say the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0110.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
