HOUSING (PRIVATE STREET WORKS) (Hansard, 5 May 1958)

§ Dr. Donald Johnson (Carlisle)
I wish to raise the question of hardship of owner-occupiers under the Private Streets Works Act. This debate arises out of a simple constituency Question which I put down two or three weeks ago, which, in turn, was the result of an approach made to me by a resident of one of our unmade roads in Carlisle, Croft Road, who had been approached by our local council about the making up of the road and the consequent road charges due to be paid under the Act. It is one of the complications of being a Member of this House that, at times unexpectedly, one finds greatness thrust upon one.
On this occasion I was indeed surprised to find this question widely reported in the Press, and, subsequent to the Press reports, to receive correspondence from divers places in various widely separated parts of the country, such as Sheffield, Weston-super-Mare, and Boston Spa, and to receive representations from my hon. Friends and from the National Farmers' Union, which was concerned about the embarrassment frequently caused to farmers by these road charges. It seems that an acute situation has arisen owing to the fact that local authorities at the present time, doubtless from financial stringency, are perhaps having some difficulty in keeping their staffs employed at their own expense and that perhaps they find in making up roads a means of keeping their staffs going at the expense of owner-occupiers in those unmade roads. It appears that they are having a general drive on these unmade roads, with consequent embarrassment to the owner-occupiers of the houses.
The statutory provisions in this respect come under rather antiquated Acts of Parliament of 70 or 80 years ago which were, naturally, introduced to deal with the conditions of a bygone age. There is, for example, the Public Health Act of 1875 and the Private Streets Works Act of 1892; and I would remind the House that since these Acts were brought in there has been a considerable social revolution in this country. That has affected this problem in two ways; first, 998 in relation to the financial status of the average owner-occupier. In the Victorian era, when this legislation was passed, the owner-occupier was, as a general rule, a person of considerable financial status. That was before the days of our conception of a property-owning democracy and the owning of houses by people of quite moderate means. Today the question of road charges can create great embarrassment on grounds of financial status alone. Secondly, and equally—or perhaps even more important—is the matter of the increased complication in the making of roads. There is also, as a result of that, the increased cost.
In these days, when a road is made up, usually the occupier who is due for these charges is served with a very remarkable document such as the one which I have here tonight. Although it is headed, "Public Health Act, 1875", I cannot think it was visualised, at the time that Act was passed, that it would have to serve the circumstances of today. I am open to correction on that, but I should think that I am right. This is the sort of thing that the unfortunate owner-occupier is asked to do: The tarmacadam is to consist of two courses—both to be laid and rolled separately to thickness of 2¼ inches & 1¼ inches. The aggregate grading is to comply with B.S. 802, 1945, Table 1b, for 1½ inches nominal size and Table 3 for ¾ inch nominal size for base course and wearing course respectively". So we go on through a whole page of complicated particulars, and this notice ends with the rather extraordinary statement which can be only a formality, namely, that The whole of the above-mentioned work to be executed by you in accordance with the plans and sections hereinbefore reterred to.. Of course, that is out of the question. The whole of this complicated work passes to the local council, and the person concerned is sent a formidable bill for the making up of the road.
I cannot illustrate the point better than to quote a particular instance from my own constituency in respect of this specific road; it shows the difficulties which are caused. This example is of a lady who lives on a corner of Croft Road in Carlisle. She has a bungalow on the main road, which she built in 1930 at a cost of £750. At that time, 28 years ago, her bungalow was merely flanked by spare ground at the side, and she had been informed that an accom- 999 modation road would be laid in due course to some new houses at the back, and that the cost would be only about £50. Twenty-eight years later the road was made up and the bill which she was sent for a large stretch of side road was no less than £500. It is a road for which she has no use and which has no amenity value to her, because even her garage and run-in face on to the main road. This bill was sent to a salaried professional lady of quite moderate means. The file of letters from other parts of the country that I have here tells of very similar stories.
Is there any way in which these hardships can be relieved? We know that the local authority in Carlisle is giving people ten years to pay, but that is not a great alleviation at present interest rates. The money still has to be paid. Is there anything which can be done to relieve these cases of hardship? A Press cutting sent to me states that in Petts Wood there is a bus driver who is earning £9 a week and who owes no less than £900. It is clear, therefore, that some of these cases are very hard. I appreciate that these cases are, so to speak, the left-overs from arrangements which have now been to some extent extinguished by the 1951 Act, by which charges in these days have to be deposited in advance rather than left over for a long period of time. Nonetheless, even under that Act the responsibility is still there.
I want the Minister to consider the matter very seriously. Here is a strong deterrent against new house purchases, and against the philosophy of a property-owning democracy and the owner-occupation of houses. Will not the Minister consider the whole question? I have given him an instance where the road has cost almost as much as the house. Surely we must pay serious attention to this matter before we reach the stage where the road costs more than the house. It is on those grounds that I put the question to him tonight.

§ Mr. John Barter (Ealing, North)
I am grateful for this opportunity to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson). Much of the problem that he mentioned arises, first, through the long delay which very often takes place, during 1000 which time the circumstances of the owner-occupier may change quite substantially, and, secondly, because during that time there would appear to have taken place a substantial increase in the cost of the road-building works concerned.
This problem is not confined to the question of road building. It affects owner-occupiers in other ways. There are many cases of quite substantial increases in the general cost of repairs to the ordinary house, which are not adequately reflected in the maintenance allowances for Schedule A. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us any information or guidance whether the increase in the cost of road works is not roughly the same sort of increase—and if so, what it is—as that which has taken place in the cost of maintenance of the average owner-occupier's house.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)
I have listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson). I know he feels deeply on this subject.
The law relating to private streets has been well established for many years. Owners of private property are responsible for their upkeep and for having them put into a proper state of repair before the local authority assumes responsibility for their maintenance at the public expense. This is the basis of the Public Health Act, 1875, and of the Private Streets Works Act, 1892. Under both Acts the costs are chargeable to the frontagers in proportion to the length of frontage, although under the 1892 Act, the local authority may apportion the charge by reference to the degree of benefit which different properties may derive from the works. Local authorities also have the power to contribute either a part or the whole of the cost of the works, although they cannot relieve a particular frontager of his burden in full. They may also recover charges by annual instalments over a period of up to 30 years.
It is stating the obvious to say that times have changed since 1875 and there is no doubt that the standard of construction of private streets required today is higher and more costly. The question is, who should bear the liability for this 1001 cost? At any rate, in principle, it still seems reasonable that the owners of property for whose benefit the work is done should be responsible. On new private street works, that is, roads on new housing estates, there is little dispute about who should pay. Builders nowadays are expected to make up the roads on an estate or to pay a deposit to meet the cost under the Act of 1951.

§ Mr. Alan Green (Preston, South)
If an estate is built behind an existing aggregation of property, and the council desires access to it through the back yards rather than the frontages of existing owner-occupiers, should the local authority pay for the cost of making what is in effect a new road giving them access to a new housing estate?

§ Mr. Bevins
Shortly, the answer is that if a new road is constructed alongside and flanking existing houses, though it leads to a new housing estate or a new school or some other development, in strict law the occupier of the property can be called on to pay his share of the cost of the road flanking his house.
The question about which we are exercised is whether the position should be any different in respect of an old road which has been left for a long time in an unmade condition. It is true that the burden of road charges may be heavier today than 20 or 30 years ago, but they are not necessarily unfair on that account. Most house purchasers are aware of the liability for these charges which, more often than not, are reflected in the purchase price of the houses. If that be so, I do not think it unreasonable that the owner should pay his share of the cost of making up the road when the time comes. Most property owners know of this liability when they buy a house. I have many letters at the Ministry from owners who are only too anxious to have roads made up, even though they are expected to foot the bill for the work, because, apart from added convenience, the value of their property is increased in that way.
As my hon. Friend says, there are many complaints, and I should be the last to deny that cases of hardship arise when the incidence of road charges falls very heavily on a particular property owner. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) has mentioned what is perhaps the most common case of all, where a house is constructed 1002 on a housing estate, the road is made up in front, and 20 or 30 years later a road is constructed on the flank. I saw a case of that sort recently. The house owner was very old, blind, deaf and penniless. It was undoubtedly a hard case. At the end of the day, however, the local authority felt able to contribute 25 per cent. towards the total cost of the road works and was also willing to spread the outstanding liability over 30 years.
I met a case recently of a house with a frontage of 50 ft. on an existing road and a flank frontage of about 200 ft. on a private road. The owner was not by any means a wealthy person and she appealed to my right hon. Friend against the demand apportioned by the local authority. We were not able to accept the contention that the owner was being penalised, and her appeal was dismissed, but—this is the important point—the making up of the road added to the value of her property and made it possible for her to sell part of her garden as a building plot and so recover a good deal of the costs to which she became liable.
I have listened with very great care to what has been said by my hon. Friends, and they may be assured that we shall give careful consideration to all that has been said. I must add that it is rather difficult to visualise a fair alternative to the present basis; that is to say, an alternative which would take account of both payments already made and the increased value which would accrue to existing property owners if the liability were in future to be discharged by the local authority. I doubt very much whether there would be any general support for a radical change of that nature. However, it may well he that there is scope for improving the method of implementing these liabilities, especially in cases where real hardship is evident, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter), while it is not germane to the subject of the debate, perhaps I might add that the statutory deductions for the purpose of house maintenance were last fixed in 1928, and I should say that it is fair to reckon that since that time the costs of house maintenance have risen three or four times.