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
Catalogue details

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.

    123/126 (page 95)
    20° Maii, 1936.] the clause as a whdle. You have to read the clause with the Private Street Works Acts as modified; it is all one. Captain Bourne.]| That is this horrible thing. Chairman.| The appalling document. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] I quite agree. I do not know why Parliament will do it, but Parliament will do it, despite every- body’s protest. Mr. Wrottesley.] It was not Parliament this time. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Yes, it was. Mr. Wrottesley.| I thought it came from behind us this time. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] No. That is put- ting it quite shortly; I dd not want to take up time. This is proposing to put the parties in the same position as that in which they would be if the sewer was constructed after the road. There is only one other thing. The local authority in laying out a sewer like this, if they have to pay compensation to the landowner—and the landowner is much better off in this case than under the Private Street Works Act—would naturally carry the sewer through his land in such a way as would harmonise with his probable development. They would not desire to put it awkwardly for this reason, that in assessing the compen- sation it is perfectly obvious the Arbi- trator would take into account whether it was going to hinder subsequent develop- ment or not, and local authorities do generally try to be reasonable in these matters, if only in order that that may reduce the compensation payable by them- selves. Therefore, what does happen, in practice, my lord, is that when you are [ Continued. laying out a sewer like this, the sewer is laid in what is deemed to be the most convenient course for subsequent develop- ment. One last point. My learned friend put the case cf the sewer being laid along a strip of the land, and the landowner subsequently constructing his street not right up to the edge of his land. Then he says that the adjoining owner would not have to pay anything towards the cost of the sewer. If the landowner wants to make him pay part of the cost of the sewer, he will be well advised to go to another Surveyor who will see that his street does go up to the edge of the land, and then the adjoining owner will have to pay» If he ddes as my learned friend indicated, it will be done to pre- vent the adjoining owner getting access. Mr. Wrottesley.] It may be that it suits the lay-out of the rest of his estate. Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] How can it suit the layout of the rest of his estate to leave a narrow strip between the street he constructs and the next estate, un- less it is to prevent the adjoining land- owner getting access. That is all I need say. Mr. Wrottesley.] I only want to say one thing. Mr. Tyldesley Jones. | My learned friend has no further reply. Mr. Wrottesley.] I have nét yet re- plied. I put the criticism, and my learned friend answered it. I only want to say that payment by set off is, I believe, payment, and if, by set off or otherwise, I buy the advantage of having a sewer in my land, I ought not again to have to pay the cost of it. In that way I should have to pay twice over. (35976—9) Wt. 577-912 875 8/36 P.St. G, 335