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.
115/126 (page 87)
![20° Maiti, 1936.) [ Continued. language), which is our endeavour to torture - this’ act into what it ‘is apparently tortured into by this section 64. Sir Henry Cautley.] Have the land- owners been paid compensation for the sewers coming across their land? Mr. Wrottesley.] I am coming to that. They may have received compensation or they may not have received any com- pensation, because it may be said that the sewer has bettered their land. That brings in a special complication. I am going to deal with that point. For the moment I point out that what happens is that some person has to go off and buy a copy of the Private Street Works Act, and if he has sufficient education in these matters, and sufficient intelli- gence, he has to create a document like this. If the Committee decide to pass either of these clauses. I shall ask (and my learned friend will probably support me) that the thing shall be reduced to one document which is to be put in the Private Act in question, and that it shall not be necessary for a person who has to. try to understand a section in a local Act to have to do that sort of thing. Lord Macmillan.| This is perfectly in- tolerable. Mr. Wrottesley.| This is perfectly intolerable. We have done our best, and TI need not pause to comment on it. One could spend an hour or two pointing out how difficult it is, and there is the possi- bility of arguments before Justices, taken, if necessary, to the House of ' Lords, as to what Parliament meant when they said ‘‘ The Private Street Works Act is to apply as adapted.”’ Lord Macmillan.| That is mere form. Mr. Wrottesley.| That is mere form. The next thing is that the whole machinery is of the wrong design to do the job. It will be remembered that one of the protections for the landowner in the Private Street Works Act is to have what are called the original estimates which can be checked and are to be checked: when they are made, before the work is done. At that stage you have a right of audience to allege that they are exaggerated, that they are too expensive, or that they are unnecessary. That is not done in this case. In this case you go through a sort of drill under which, ten years after the work has been done, although you have not been consulted and you had no chance of approving or dis- approving of it, you-are given a so-called 35976 estimate, namely, an estimate of what was expended ten years ago. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| A statement. Mr. Wrottesley.| You are given the actual expenditure which was incurred ten years ago on an article which is underground, and therefore you cannot see it. That is not satisfactory, surely. That is one of the difficulties. The next point, and a very important one, I think, is this, that in most cases, and, I think, in every case but one (Wigan is the only exception, [ think) in which you find this clause (and this. is dealing with the point raised by Sir Henry Cautley) you find incorporated in the Act another clause which is on page 18a. It is Section 66 of the Romford Act. I ask your Lordships to look at this, it says: ‘‘ In estimating the amount of compensation to be paid by the Coun- cil to any person in respect of the carry- ing of any sewer into, through or under any lands within the district the enhance- ment in value of any lands of such per- son over or on either side of such sewer and of any other lands of such person through which the sewer is not carried arising out of the construction of the sewer shall be fairly estimated and shall be set off against the said compensation.”’ May I pause a moment there to see where we are. <A sewer is brought and laid for a mile through my property. A certain amount of my land is sterilised ; I may not build, of course, over the site of that sewer. As I have indicated it would probably not be in the direc- tion I should have laid that sewer, be- cause it is not laid for mv purposes. This is a sewer laid to-day, when there is no development on my estate con- templated at all. It is laid for a mile through my property at an angle calcu- lated to do me the maximum harm as well as good; it is by chance. We must face the possibilities. When the question of compensation for this is gone into, a Surveyor may, nevertheless, be able to find that the fact that, for the first time, my property is equipped with a trunk sewer, has increased the value of my whole property by a sum as much as (let us say exactly the same as) the amount of money I should receive for the wayleave and for the sterilisation of my property. I am putting a case; I am told that these things happen. You get a free run through my property, the basis being this: ‘‘It is true that I should have to pay you some money, but that money is just about equal to the E](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0115.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
