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.
122/126 (page 94)
![20° Maiti, 1936. ] [ Continued. Sir Henry Cautley.] ‘Why was not that matter settled once for all? Mr, Tyldesley Jones. | That was for the property in its then condition without any street.on ,the sewer. Now he goes and. contructs a street on the sewer; he now comes in and makes use of the sewer as part of the development of his estate, Sir Henry Cautley.] But what. was in- cluded. in the enhancement except the right to use the sewer? You valued it at that time, and you have been paid for the right to use the sewer from that estate. | Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] No; the property in its then condition. Sir Henry Cautley.] It was useless, ex- cept if it was developed. The sewer was of no value—it was a detriment. - Mr, Tyldesley Jones. ] How can anybody assess compensation for the use of a sewer by property in some condition other than its then condition? Sir Henry Cautley.] In the future, of course, he can use it, but that is the enhancement—the possibility of its being used. The sewer itself is of no value to the estate whatever. It is the possibility of using it. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| There may be a house there, certainly. Sir Henry Cautley.] If you have chosen to take a payment then, that should settle the matter. Mr. Cape.] If the local authority can- not show that the sewer has enhanced the property they cannot put that as a set off against compensation. Supposing you put the sewer through this estate, and the local authority cannot show that there has been any enhancement of the pro- perty, they cannot put in a claim for enhancement against compensation. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| No; they cannot get it. I have been testing it in this way; I have been asking my clients: ‘‘ Do you attach the slightest importance to Clause. 662’ .I do not know. That is a matter that has to be considered, but I should imagine, speaking offhand, that Clause 66 is probably not of very great value. Does the whole objection to the clause go if Clause 66 was struck outP Mr. Wrottesley.] No. _ Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Then it is not the point. Mr, Wrottesley.] It is one point. There are three or four points. It is one terrible cne which I think you cannot get over. _Mr.. Tyldesley Jones.] The Committee will say as to that. Mr. Wrottesley.| Payment by set off is payment. I should have thought asa lawyer you would have agreed with me. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] It is not pe ment twice over. Mr. Wrottesley.]| I did not say it was. Captain Bourne.| Supposing an estate had built a street first, and you came and put a sewer down, you would be entitled to recover the whole of the cost from the estate. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Yes. Captain Bourne.] But supposing the developer puts down his own sewers, are you then entitled to come and bring another sewer along that street, a sewer - for your own purposes and not his, and charge him with the cost? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Not if his sewer was satisfactory. Under the Private Street Works Act it says that: ‘‘ Where any street is not sewered to the satis- faction.”’ | Captain Bourne.| The point I was after is this: In a case where you take a sewer across country in this way, it is probably for your convenience to assist the sewerage of a block of houses lying there, and perhaps to connect with the main sewer lying here. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| Yes. Captain Bourne.]| It is quite true that you might want to take a sewer through his street after he built it, but would you be entitled to charge for a much larger sewer than he would want for his. street, merely to relieve your houses over there? Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] No. Captain Bourne.] Under this clause, I think you are. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] I do not agree. Captain Bourne.| The words are very mandatory. I agree it is open to the person to object. on certain grounds, but the words are very mandatory: ‘‘ In any case where the Council ‘has incurred expenses, such expenses shall be recover- able and shall be apportioned and. become charged.’’ It is a very mandatory thing. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.| Yes, but you must read the remainder of the clause. Captain Bourne.] But, as I said earlier, it seems to me undesirable to put a very mandatory charge on it, and then leave the person who is aggrieved to go to:the Court and get off, if we can possibly put the clause the other way round, that he is not charged ‘‘ unless ”’ Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] I quite agree with the observations you made before, if I may. say so with great respect, but this clause does not do that. You have to read](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32186022_0122.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
