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.

    75/126 (page 47)
    Chairman.] I understood that the thing they are really aiming at is the land ripe for development. Mr. Wrottesley.| In so far as you are aiming at the land ripe for develop- ment, I say that clearly the proper standard is benefit, not frontage at all. Sir Henry Cautley.] If you take that, to what length of sewer will you apply it? In the ordinary case under the Pri- vate Streets Works Act you have the ordinary street, a well defined unit. If you have one of the old roads repair- able by the inhabitants at large, where » are you going to stop? How much cost of the sewer, what length of the sewer, are you going to apply to a certain area to which you apportion the benefit? Mr. Wrottesley.| Under the benefit system you can charge a man with a sewer of the size which will benefit him, and that will mean possibly a sewer of greater capacity than in the case of a person, merely a frontager, who has a plot. Sir Henry Cautley.] That is not rele- vant to the actual cost of the sewer put down. Mr. Wrottesley.| You cannot ask for more than the cost. Captain Bourne.| Take the case you have already given. You have somebody who has along one of the main roads a house and largish grounds, and the land is capable of development. He does not wish to develop it, but for some reason or another it may suit him to connect his house with this sewer; it may be cheaper. What is the benefit to him? Is it the enhanced value which that land would reach if it were put on the open market, or is it merely the fact that he gets rid of the annual expense of £3 in cleaning out his cesspool? Mr. Wrottesley.| It is the latter. Chairman.| The actual benefit he gets is saving the trouble of cleaning out the cesspool P Mr. Wrottcsley.] That is the benefit. Chairman.| Not the increased value of the land? Mr. Wrottesley.| No, he should not be assessed on the increased value until he realises that value. He simply gets the benefit of not having to empty his cess- pool because it is done for him auto- matically. That is the full amount of the benefit. When he develops his land it may be that he or his successors, or the purchaser, will get other and different benefits. . Ciairman, | If he: has an approach, say, 100 yards from the frontage, and puts himself on to the sewer, he pays for that benefit. He has, perhaps, a quarter of a mile frontage to his park or garden. When he comes into the market they would pay when they connect up. Mr. Wrottesley.| Yes, when he comes into the market for development. It is not my clause, and I do not know, but that is what I am content to admit as quite just. Chairman.| You that ? Mr. Wrottesley.] I am agreeing with that. Charman.| You pay pari passu with the benefit ? Mr. Wrottesley.| That is right. Chairman.| The actual benefit which you are getting? Mr. Wrottesley.] Until then { have not the money with which I can pay if I am a small man. One sometimes gets a false view by taking the case of the larger man who has reserves of money. are agreeing with Charrman.| Do you pay when the pro- perty passes? Mr. Wrottesley.| Yes. Chairman.| By sale or by death? Mr. Wrottesley. | Yes. Sir Henry Cautley.| He might benefit by much more than the cost of the sewer. Mr. Wrottesley.| No, clearly you must not make a profit on the sewer. That was what was endeavoured to be done in Coventry. Sir Henry Cautley.] What part of the sewer ? Mr. Wrottesley.| On any part. The Corporation could lay a sewer permitting profit to be made, and they could charge the landowners around. They could say: ‘¢ We have multiplied the value of your property by two. The sewer cost only £10,000, but we could lay it, and you could not have done, therefore we want £20,000 from you.”’ Sir Henry Cautley.] If they are paying by enhancement of value, that is the price they ought to pay. Mr. Wrottesley.| Never more than cost, or a fair proportion of the cost. I was asked what is the increased value to a house which in fact links up with a sewer.