CLAUSE 2.—(Local authority for purposes of Act.) (Hansard, 7 June 1932)

§ Sir GEORGE HUME
I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words 1788 "the London County Council and," and to insert instead thereof the words: as respects the City of London, the Common Council of that City, as respects the county of London, the London County Council, and elsewhere. When this matter was before the Committee an Amendment was put down on behalf of the City of London to provide that the City should have the power to exercise a veto on any town planning scheme made by the London County Council which affected the City area. At that time there had been no opportunity for consultation between the London County Council and the City Corporation, and those of us who are interested in the Clause from the London County Council point of view said that we would not oppose it at that stage, but would reserve our right to raise the question on Report stage, the object being to enable the City Corporation and the London County Council to get into contact. It seemed very undesirable that two such authorities should be at loggerheads over a matter of this kind, which we were quite sure could be arranged in a friendly way. That contact was made. Several suggestions were made to the City Corporation,, and finally we came to an agreement by which the City Corporation should be its own town planning authority as regards the City area and the London County Council the authority for the rest of the county. Our objection to the City Corporation having a veto is that it would be inconvenient that one local authority should be vetoing another. An immense amount of work has to be done in preparing a town planning scheme, and for one authority to come in afterwards and possibly upset everything would cause great inconvenience and cost. It is better that each should be responsible for its own area, and if that were so I am certain that two bodies like the City Corporation and the London County Council would certainly get into contact at the very earliest stage, in order to put their heads together to see that their arrangements did not clash and that they were working together for the benefit of the whole area. The agreement come to provided, putting it broadly, that the City Corporation was to be the town planning authority for its own area; and then there were these qualifications: 1789

(1) That the expenditure of the London County Council as town planning authority should continue to be treated as a general county charge.

(2) That where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council the cost of the whole scheme, including so much thereof as affects the City Corporation, should be borne rateably by the administrative county as a whole; subject to any question of difference arising between the Corporation and the Council as to whether or not a scheme made by the Corporation is reasonably consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the Council being referred to a determination by the Minister.

(3) That arrangements with regard to schemes affecting both the Council and the City Corporation and complementary to one another shall be discussed and worked out in detail before final schemes are formulated.

This creates no new precedent, because the City already is an authority on its own in connection with housing schemes, for example, and so on; and I venture to think we are fortunate indeed to have the representatives of the City combining with those who are interested in the London County Council to bring this arrangement before the Committee and I hope it will be agreed to.

§ Sir PERCY HARRIS
I do not want to make any difficulties, because I know how jealous the City of London is about its ancient privileges, how very sensitive it is about the new body, the County Council, butting in or interfering in the City area, but I do not think the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is quite right in his precedents. After all, the proper precedent is the London Building Act, which applies right throughout the county area. Before I agree to come into this arrangement I would like to be satisfied, and I think the Committee are entitled to be satisfied, about the distribution of the financial burden. The City has within it the highest assessable value in the whole of London, and surely it is proper that the City should pay its scot and lot of any expenditure that arises out of the administration of this Act. The hon. Member for Greenwich was not quite fair. He read his memorandum—I suppose that in a matter of such high policy he felt he ought to stick to the bare written word, and would not venture into the ordinary spoken word, in which region he is exceptionally clear. Suppose an improvement carried 1790 out under the Town Planning Act involves the London County Council in expenditure for Greenwich, to take a practical example.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMN
I must point out to the Committee that, if this Amendment is carried, there will be a consequential Amendment to Clause 44 dealing with the apportionment of expenses as between the Common Council of the City of London and the London County Council. If it is for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion now on the question whether the Common Council of the City of London should or should not be a town planning authority, and, consequently, how expenses fall to be borne by it, I have no objection to that course; but, if this matter is discussed now, it cannot be discussed again on Clause 44.

Sir H. YOUNG
The suggestion you have made, Captain Bourne, seems to me to be an extremely wise one. All these matters are closely linked together, and may be disposed of in one discussion.

§ Sir P. HARRIS
I will undertake not to repeat my arguments on the subsequent Amendment. I was putting a practical example to the hon. Member for Greenwich. Suppose there is a town-planning scheme in Greenwich and that involves expenditure. Will the City of London, with the rest of London—Whitechapel, Hammersmith, Hampstead and all the other boroughs—bear its share of the cost of that town-planning scheme? If not, is it a bad bargain for the rest of London; because the probability of a town-planning scheme inside the City area is almost remote? The City is already built up, and I cannot imagine any expensive town-planning scheme inside the City walls. If I am correct, then the City of London is making a very good bargain for the ratepayers and owners of property in the City of London, and may be making a very bad bargain for all the poor boroughs round about the City who will equally not have town planning schemes applying to them, but will have to bear the cost of a town planning scheme for places like Greenwich, Woolwich and other places on the outskirts of London likely to be town planned. I am all in favour of doing abeyance to the privileges of the City of 1791 London on one condition, that it is not at the cost of the rest of the ratepayers of London. I do not want to interfere with those rights, which date back centuries, but I do object if the rest of London has to pay extra rates in order to protect those rights. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich ought to make it clear that this bargain is not going to cost the rest of London a heavy toll on its rates.

§ Sir G. HUME
I thought that in reading out the agreement which has been come to, the matter was clear. I take it the position is, that if the City, as the town planning authority, on its own initiative plans a City area not affecting the general county, the City bears the expense. Where the expenditure is that of the London County Council as the town planning authority—take the case of Greenwich—that would be treated as a general county charge. Where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon, and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council, the cost of the whole scheme, including so much of it as affects the City Corporation, will be borne rate-ably by the administrative county as a whole, subject to any question of difference arising as to whether it is consequential or not.

Sir H. YOUNG
The House may expect a word from me on this important Amendment. I think it need only be in the way of congratulation both to the County Council and to the Corporation for the wisdom and mutual forbearance which they have shown in arriving at an arrangement which, I am sure, will commend itself to the Committee as a wise arrangement. We may congratulate ourselves also upon being relieved of the painful necessity of acting as arbiter between the two authorities.