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.
113/126 (page 85)
![20° Mati, 1936.] Mr, Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] I meant that. The local authorities would not press for it to be included in the clause. I agree absolutely with what Captain Bourne has said, that it is desirable that the clause should be definite and not left to the option of local authorities. I am not suggesting that for a moment. Chairman.] Can we put in a clause to that effect ? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| The clause would have to define the liability. Captain Bourne.] I think we might vet round that. Sir Henry Cautley.] Does not it mean a proviso Only to the clause in the Tawn Planning Act? y, Witness.] Might I say in reply to something that Sir Henry Cautley said before lunch, that I quite agree that it is absolutely impossible to say what pro- portion of the land on one of these roads where a sewer is to be laid is likely to be agricultural. You cannot say, but I think it is fair to assume that a very substantial proportion would be. There- fore one does not want to be too mich obsessed with the cases of the cricket ground and so on. I feel in regard to this lay-out the Committee have been discussing, that the local authority no doubt in course of time as and when development occurred would get back a Mr. Wrottesley.| Here, my Lord, we come to a very different proposition, and whereas I had indicated that with re- gard to Section 62 my clients thought it desirable that, properly safeguarded, something along the lines of Section 62 should find its way, at any rate, into local legislation in a proper case, when we come to Section 64, I think we shall find it so dangerous that I doubt whether Section 64 ought ever to be granted ax a stock clause. I am not saying that cases might not be made out in individual cases for particular sewers for Section 64, but there are real difficulties in using it as a general power and equipping every urban district council and borough in the country with the powers of Section 64. In the first place it is not a common case like the last one. There must be hundreds of miles of highways in this country along which sewers have yet got to be laid, and beside which there are existing premises; but when you come to Section 64, you are dealing with what is, comparatively speaking, a rare case. You are dealing with a sewer laid, if I | Continued. substantial part of their cost. One can- not put it higher than that, but-it would not be a negligible amount? Lord Macmillan. 42. A deferred payment—and fairly long deferred in some cases?—Yes. One has to remember that apart from the case where a sewer is being put down to iink up an outside district—that is a common case—in many other cases, it will not be for that, but because it is known that development is going to take place. Sir Henry Cautley. 43. And developing the sewer will bring in a great quantity of land?P—Yes, within a short space of time. Lord Macmillan.] It will help on rate- able value and all the rest of it after development? ; Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Yes. Lord Macmuillan.|] It will attract de- velopment, and development attracts rate- able value? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| Yes. Chairman.| Have you any questions, Mr. Jones? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| No, thank you. Chairman.| Mr. Wrottesley? Mr. Wrottesley.] No. withdrew.) may say so, across country, laid in the line which the authority for some reasons of their own, desire to adopt, cutting across a person’s property, regardless of whether that is the desirable line for that sewer to take having regard to the future development of that estate. If this sewerage work had been constructed and done as part of a Town Planning scheme, it would possibly have been paid for, to some extent, under the general principles of betterment which apply under Town Planning. It has to be borne in mind, I think, that town planning operates theoretically along these lines that, whereas you have land in multiple ownership and not in single ownership, the real object of town planning is to apply the same standard of development to land which is in multiple ownership as you would find a wise and prudent landowner exercising himself if he owned all the property. If you have a landowner with suffi- cient property he does his own town planning. He plans with a view to the proper, and that is generally the most](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0113.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
