NEW STREETS BILL

HL Deb 07 June 1951 vol 171 cc1160-87

4.14 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now receive itself into Committee.—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Payments to be made by owners of new buildings in respect of street works]:

LORD MARLEY

The first Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment, is repeated in some eight or nine other Amendments in the course of the Bill, and with the permission of the House I will explain why that Amendment has been made. Local authorities suggested that the words "have a frontage" were more suitable than "front," used as a verb, and this Amendment meets with their approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("front") and insert ("have a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to this Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This Amendment adds the words "or a previous owner thereof" in order to make the matter clear. It is practically a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, after ("erected") insert ("or a previous owner thereof").—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This obviously makes the wording much clearer than it was before. It is clear that the subsection should include a reference to the previous owner, although I doubt whether it did before this Amendment was put forward. I am in full support of it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This also is a drafting Amendment. We forgot to put in the word "private." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 38, after ("appropriate") insert ("private").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 45, leave out from ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This is a small Amendment of some substance, and its effect is that where buildings are erected on land belonging to the British Transport Commission, or to any of their Executives, the Commission or Executive will be exempt from the obligation to pay or secure in advance the sum needed to cover their ultimate liability for the cost of making up the street. Station approaches, for instance, are involved. I should make it absolutely clear that if and when a street is subsequently made up the Commission or Executive will be responsible for the payment of their share of the cost. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, after ("of") insert ("the British Transport Commission or any Executive established by or under section five of the Transport Act, 1947 ").—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I ask the noble Lord whether this Amendment is proposed because the Transport Executive have such large profits in hand that there is obviously good security for these payments?

LORD MARLEY

I gather that they have £8,000,000 this year, which would cover any liability under the clause.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Lord is thinking of the Coal Board!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This Amendment exempts from the application of the Bill a building to be erected by a trading or industrial estate company. These companies are non-profit-making concerns and are formed by the Board of Trade for the purpose of laying out industrial estates, and of building factories upon them. They are financed by the Board of Trade —that is, by all of us—and they provide the streets and services themselves. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 14, at end insert— ("(i) in a case where the building is proposed to be erected by a trading or industrial estate company within the meaning of section fifteen of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and the cost thereof is to be defrayed wholly or mainly by a government department ").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Determination of liability for and amount of payments]:

LORD MARLEY

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, leave out ("building will front") and insert ("frontage of the building will be").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Sums paid or secured to be in discharge of further liability for street works

3.—(1) Where a sum has been paid or secured under section one of this Act by the owner of land in respect of the cost of street works to be carried out in the private street on which that land fronts, the liability of that owner or any subsequent owner of that land in respect of the carrying out of street works in that street under the appropriate private street works code shall, as respects that front-age, be deemed to be discharged to the extent of the sum so paid or secured, and if, when the street is declared to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, the said sum is found to exceed the total liability aforesaid in respect of that frontage or there is no liability because the street was lot made up at the expense of the local authority, the local authority shall refund the amount of the excess, or, as the case may be, the whole of the sum, to the person who is for the time being owner of the land.

Where any land in respect of which a sum has been so paid or secured is subsequently divided in two or more parts so that two or more owners incur the liability aforesaid, the sum shall be treated as apportioned between those owners according to their respective frontages.

LORD MARLEY

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, leave out ("fronts") and insert ("has a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in sub-section (1) after "secured" [where that word occurs a second time] to insert: "and to that extent only."

The noble Lord said: During the debate on Second Reading we had some discussion whether the original payment made would be the full and final payment which a man had to pay under this Bill. It became apparent that that was not so, and that if the original assessment had been too low the frontager would be liable for a further payment. My Amendment is moved to make that clear at first glance to anybody who reads. this Bill when it becomes law. Incident-ally, I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will forgive me for asking him not to rely on these loudspeakers; they are not doing much good so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and it is very difficult to hear what he says.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, after ("secured") insert ("and to that extent only.")—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MARLEY

I will do my utmost to make myself heard. The promoters of this Bill greatly appreciate the co-operative efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and all he has done to make this a better Bill. We are delighted to accept the Amendment which he has just moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "shall refund" down to the end of the first paragraph of the subsection, and to insert: (a) if the sum was paid, shall refund the amount of the excess or, as the case may be, the whole sum to the person who is for the time being owner of the land; (b) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is for the time being owner of the land, shall release the security to the extent of the excess or, as the case may be, the whole security; (c) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is not for the time being owner of the land, shall pay to that owner an amount equal to the excess or, as the case may be. the whole sum, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount so paid.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a little difficult to explain. Clause 3 deals with sums paid or secured to be a discharge of further liability on street works. There is no trouble about the cash payments: the problem arises when people cover themselves by a security. As regards security the new Amendment is intended to cover a case in which the security was more than the cost of making up the road, or where there was no cost in making up the road—not because the work cost nothing but because under the 1875 Act local authorities can compel frontagers to make up the road themselves, at their own cost, if they choose to use that power. If the security consists of a charge on the property the new owner is liable, and the Amendment provides that if there are no costs involved, or the cost is less than the security, thus cancelling the liability of the new owner for the balance of the cost on the road, the security will be cancelled.

When some other security is involved we have to assume that, if there has been a sale, the new owner has paid additional money in advance to cover the cost of making up the road. Here the fair thing to do is to repay the whole of the debt to the new owner, and to realise the security as against the original owner to the extent which is necessary to recoup the local authority for the cost of what they have paid to the new owner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

It was clear that in the original Bill the different ways in which this system would work were not fully provided for. I think the new draft is a great improvement, and it certainly has my support.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This is virtually a drafting Amendment, which covers the case where liability does not in fact materialise, so that it is necessary to insert the words I have put down. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, after ("incur") insert ("or would incur").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY moved to add at the end of subsection (1): and, if the sum was secured and the security is the property of one only of those owners, the local authority shall only be required under paragraph (b) hereof to release the security to the extent to which the amount apportioned to that owner exceeds his liability aforesaid or, as the case may, to the extent of the whole of that amount, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount or amounts paid to the other owner or owners under paragraph (c) hereof ".

The noble Lord said: This deals with the case where the original owner sells off his land in plots of which he may retain one or more himself. The Amendment, like the previous Amendment, deals with the case where some security other than cash or in the form of a charge on the land itself is given by the original owner. The purchasers of plots will have paid extra because of this security, and they will have payments under paragraph (c) of Clause 3 which we have just amended. The effect of this Amendment is that, as respects the amount due to the original owner, the security will, for any parts retained by him, be cancelled; and so far as any plots are sold, the security will be realised to the extent necessary to recoup the local authority for the sums paid to the other owners. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD LLEWELLIN

I have not put down an Amendment on a point which I now wish to make, but I would point out that under the provisions of Clause 3 as it stands at present the local authority can take this money in advance but do not pay any periodical interest on it. They pay accrued interest only when they have finished the works and the final sum has come to be assessed. I am one of those who think that if a local authority take a man's money in advance, they, just as much as any other person or body who holds such money, ought to be prepared to pay interest upon it. The local authority can themselves invest it and get interest on it—and should be doing so. At any rate it will free them from the need of borrowing sums on which they would have to pay interest for this period. I think, therefore, it is worth while considering between now and the Report stage whether local authorities ought not to pay interest year by year on this money. It will be largely in their hands how soon they do the works for which it is paid. I raise the matter now only to warn the noble Lord that I may well put down an Amendment on that point between now and the Report stage. It is a matter which I should like to consider between now and that stage of the Bill.

LORD MARLEY

Perhaps I may say a word in reply to that point, because the noble Lord will realise that it is one which we have in fact discussed and considered. I do not say that any final decision has been reached. The problem we have to face, however, is that if a local authority are to act as a sort of banker and deal with the paying out of interest, half-yearly or yearly, to individuals, they will have quite a different problem to face in the way of expense and responsibility. It will be quite different from a position in which they merely add to the original sum year by year a book interest, which will be dealt with in the aggregate when the road comes to be made up. It is so much simpler merely to make a book entry which will be perfectly secure and will, at simple interest, if there is a long delay, amount to a considerable sum of money. I am sure one would not wish to saddle local authorities with the expense of keeping banking accounts, and things of that sort. However, naturally, we will consider this matter, and perhaps we may have a word about it at some time.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Of course, it would be much simpler for any limited liability company that borrows your money not to have to send out yearly dividends, to have forms printed and to go into all the rigmarole of sending you interest on your money. If it is a question of simplification, it will be simpler to fund it and not to pay it out annually. The point I have in mind is that, in many of these cases, the man concerned will be a small man. Probably he will have to put down £100 or whatever it may be. If he had been able to keep that money in National Savings Certificates, or in whatever he had it invested, he would have been receiving perhaps 3 per cent. on it. That is a point to be looked at, even though in a few cases it may give more trouble to a local authority. In equity the man ought to receive this interest upon which, if he is a small man, he very likely relies, because, until he builds his house, he is a man who has to pay rent on another house.

I hope the noble Lord will look at the matter with an open mind. It is not likely to cause a great deal of extra trouble to the local authority. It is an easy accounting matter. When you are demanding money in advance from a man, and when he does not get value from that money because it is not possible for the local authority to make up the road for a year or two, you ought to pay him interest. If that causes the local authorities trouble, it will be a spur to them to speed up the making up of the roads on which they have already received the deposit.

LORD MARLEY

I will willingly give that assurance, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will join with us in an examination of the problem he has raised. We should appreciate his help in that matter.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Determination to cease to have effect when plans are not proceeded with]:

4.35 p.m.

LORD MARLEY moved to leave out Clause 4 and to insert the following clause:

Determination to cease to have effect when plans are not proceeded with.

"4.—(1) Where, on the occasion of the deposit of any plans for the erection of a building, the amount to be paid or secured under section one of this Act has been determined under section two thereof, and subsequently—

1. (a) the local authority declare under section sixty-six of the Public Health Act, 1936, that the deposit of the plans shall be of no effect, or
1168
2. (b) before any work has been done in or for the purpose of erecting the building the owner gives notice in writing to the local authority of his intention not to proceed with the building,

the said determination and any payment made or security given in accordance therewith shall, unless street works have already been carried out or commenced in the street under the appropriate private street works code in respect of which the owner of the land on which the building was to be erected is liable, be of no effect for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where by virtue of the preceding sub-section a determination is of no effect and any sum has been paid or security given in accordance therewith, the local authority—

1. (a) if the sum was paid, shall refund it together with simple interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the date of payment to the person who is for the time being owner of the land;
2. (b) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is for the time being owner of the land, shall release the security;
3. (c) if the sum was secured and the person whose property is security for the payment thereof is not for the time being owner of the land, shall pay to that owner an amount equal to the said sum, and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount so paid.

Where any land in respect of which a sum has been so paid or secured is subsequently divided into two or more parts so that two or more owners would, if street works were carried out, incur liability in respect thereof, the sum (together with any interest thereon) shall be treated as apportioned between those owners according to their respective frontages and, if the sum was secured and the security is the property of one only of those owners, the local authority shall only be required under paragraph (b) hereof to release the security to the extent of the amount apportioned to that owner and shall be entitled to realise the security for the purpose of recovering the amount or amounts paid to the other owner or owners under paragraph (c) hereof.

(3) Where a person notifies the local authority in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section of his intention not to proceed with the building and by reason thereof a determination is of no effect, and subsequently notice is given to the local authority by the owner of the land that he intends to proceed with the building in accordance with the plans as originally deposited, the notice to be served under subsection (1) of section two of this Act by the local authority shall, in lieu of being served as required by that subsection, be served on him within one month after the date of the service of the notice of his intention to proceed with the building, and the said section two shall have effect accordingly."

The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause is not greatly different from the existing clause, but it includes some matters which we think more clearly explain what is intended. It deals with precisely the same problem as did the original clause—that is, where building has not been proceeded with after the amount of the payment has been decided under the New Streets Act (as this Bill will be). But we think that the provisions for this should be a little amplified, and this new clause applies either where the local authority have declared the plans to be of no effect or where the owner himself has given notice that he is not going to proceed with the building. In either case, the decision as to the amount and so on will have no effect. The provisions under subsection (2) in the Amendment follow the same three possibilities which we have already covered in the Amendment to Clause 3. I do not think that noble Lords will require any further explanation, except that, of course, there will be no partial repayment, because there is no cost. There is one other addition to the clause: we have worded it to cover the case where, after abandoning his determination to build, the owner changes his mind and decides that, after all, he is going to proceed with the building. Subsection (3) allows for serving a notice at the proper time and restarting the machinery of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

The only point I should like to ask the noble Lord on this Amendment is this. By paragraph (a) of subsection (1), I see that the local authority can— declare under section sixty-six of the Public Health Act, 1936, that the deposit of the plans shall be of no effect. Reading on, we find that any payment made or security given … shall, unless street works have already been carried out or commenced in the street … be of no effect for the purposes of this Act. Can the local authority make the declaration under paragraph (a) even if works have already started, so that by making that declaration the man will not get his refund? That is the point I should like to put to the noble Lord.

LORD MARLEY

That is a material point and I do not know the answer. I will look into it and will give the noble Lord an answer at the next stage. Would that be suitable to him?

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Lord. If the last part applies only to paragraph (b), where the man himself does not go on with the house, But the works have already started because it was expected that he was going on with the house, then that is his fault. But I am not sure that the second part of the clause (which I will not read out) should apply to paragraph (a). That is the point I should like the noble Lord to look into before the next stage.

LORD MARLEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. That is just the sort of helpful criticism that the promoters of the Bill so much value.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power of majority of frontagers to require adoption of private streets

6.—(1) Where a majority, either in number or in value, of the owners of land fronting on any built-up private street request the local authority by notice in writing to exercise their powers under the appropriate private street works code so as—

1. (a) to secure the carrying out of such street works in that street as the local authority require under that code before declaring the street to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large; and
2. (b) to declare the street to be such a highway,

the local authority shall proceed to exercise their powers, accordingly:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply unless, in at least one case, a payment has been made or security has been given under section one or' this Act by the owner of land fronting the street.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

1. (a) a street shall be deemed to be built-up if the aggregate length of the frontages of the buildings on both sides of that street constitutes at least one half of the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of that street;
2. (b) any part of a street, being a part not less than one hundred yards in length, may be treated by the owners of land fronting on that part of the street as constituting a street for the purposes of this section.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in sub-section (1) to delete "a majority, either in number or in value" and to insert: either a majority in number or a greater part in rateable value.

The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment at an early stage, since when the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has put down the Amendment that succeeds it on the Marshalled List. My Amendment, which is little more than a drafting Amendment, was put down because it was thought that the original words in the Bill were not applicable both to the majority in number of the owners and to rateable values. But, as I understand the noble Lord's Amendment, he now relies entirely on frontage, and not on the question of numbers at all. Frontage always has been the test of the contribution of frontagers under the Private Street Works Act, and since the noble Lord has changed from the rateable value, which he had in as part of the decisive factor, to the frontage, I am not sure that my Amendment is necessary. If the noble Lord will give me an assurance, it may not be necessary for me to proceed with my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("Where") to ("of") and insert ("either a majority in number or a greater part in rateable value"). —(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MARLEY

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Amendment standing in my name which is to follow this Amendment was intended to meet the very case that he has raised. I do not think there is any material alteration, except that it clarifies the position. So when the time comes for me to move my Amendment, I hope he will feel able to support it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MARLEY

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for withdrawing his Amendment, and I will try to explain the meaning of my Amendment, which I now move. The original words "Where a majority, either in number or in value," followed one of the precedents, but the municipal authorities suggested that the criterion should be the number and length of frontage. Those of us who are anxious to secure the passage of this Bill felt that that was entirely reasonable, but we did not want to go much further than that. We have made the wording more readable, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for agreeing to this Amendment rather than pressing his own.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, leave out from ("majority") to ("request") in line 44 and insert ("of the owners of land having a frontage on any built-up private street, or as many of those owners as have between them more than half the aggregate length of all the frontages on both sides of the street").—(Lord Marley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think the position is not quite as the noble Lord put it. This Amendment takes the amount of frontage, and not the value; in the original Bill the word "value" was used. It was a question of what value should be taken, and the easiest value to find was the rateable value. So I suggested putting in "rateable value," when there would be no argument as to what the value would be, because it would already be in the rating assessment. The use of the word "value" alone might have meant calling in one valuer on one side and another valuer on the other in order to find out what the true value was. But as the noble Lord has cut out "value" and relies solely on the amount of frontage my Amendment becomes unnecessary, and I think his makes the position adequately clear.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

I beg to move this drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, leave out ("fronting") and insert ("having a frontage on").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.44 p.m.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to subsection (1): Provided also that this subsection shall not apply in cases where a piped water supply and main sewer have not first been laid in the street and connected to the buildings abutting on the street and the local authority are reasonably satisfied that such piped water supply or main sewer will be laid and connected as aforesaid within a period of ten years of the receipt of the notice in writing referred to in this subsection.

The noble Viscount said: May I say at once that my purpose in moving this and the other Amendment in my name is no less helpful than the attitude shown by other noble Lords. I am entirely in favour of this Bill, and my purpose is to do what little I can to make it better if possible. I believe this Amendment tends to do that. It is a perfectly simple Amendment, and one which is in the interest alike of the ratepayers and the local authorities. The Committee are aware that it is the invariable practice of local authorities not to execute street works until main services have been laid. It is clearly an act of waste and extravagance to rip up a road which has already been made up and adequately surfaced, in order to insert water supply and sewers. Not only is such an act in itself wasteful, but once the road is ripped up and subsequently repaired it is not in fact the same road. Noble Lords who have experience of these things know that once a road has been ripped up it is never quite the same again, and it is more costly to maintain. So that, not only has one wasted money in the first instance by doing the thing twice over but there is what I may call a recurrent element of waste in the added cost of maintaining the road once ripped up and then restored so far as may be possible. I have no wish to labour the point; it is plain and simple, and obvious to all.

My noble friend may well feel that the Amendment in its present form is a little too wide—that it might enable the local authority to postpone for too long a period the making up of a road, which is certainly not what I should wish to see happen. But I do ask him—we both have the same purpose at heart—even if he rejects the wording of this Amendment, not to reject its principle, which I sincerely believe to be one helpful to all parties interested in this measure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)

LORD MARLEY

I should like to express my warm thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for the co-operative way in which he helped us when we were examining the four Amendments he had originally put down. Two are left, and I want to try to explain to him the precise difficulties that arise in accepting the Amendment that is before us at the moment. I would remind the Committee that Clause 6 deals with the power of the majority of frontagers to require the adoption of a private road, and we do not want to do anything which will impair the rights which the Bill is intended to provide. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount in the points he made with regard to the laying of a road and the subsequent damage if it is ripped up for laying water supply or sewerage; the broken-up road will probably take many years to restore.

Let us, however, take an example of the difficulties that may arise from this Amendment. Assuming that the local authority have received the money for the road from the frontagers, they are able to say one of two things. They may say, "We hope to get water pipes and sewers laid in nine years, so you cannot have a road"; or they may say, "You can have a road now, and we promise you you will have no water and sewers for at least ten years; for all we know, it may be not for twenty years; the later the better." The later the water mains and sewerage are installed, the later will the road be broken up. There is the dilemma offered by the Amendment moved by the noble-Viscount. It seems to me that what it really amounts to is that the local authority will be encouraged to put off providing water and sewers, and at the same time will be able to frustrate the object of the Bill which is to help people to get their roads made up. That is the dilemma.

Let us see how things stand at present without the Amendment. Again, the local authority have the money, and again the frontagers want the road. The local authority have every inducement to save extra expense by trying to make up the road and to provide water and sewers at the same time. They would render themselves liable to great criticism if they did not do that. And if they were not in a position to give water supplies and sewers immediately, I feel certain that, availing themselves of the opportunity of compromise which is characteristic of our democracy, when they received the demand from the frontagers for the making up and taking over of the road, the local authorities could get together with the frontagers and say: "If you will wait for another year or so before you press your demand, we shall be able to give you water and sewerage and make up the road at the same time." That seems a commonsense way out of it, and I think it would be the solution which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred would be adopted.

There is a further point which I would make in this connection. When this Bill was going through another place, there were, at the beginning, great differences of opinion in regard to the two aspects presented by it, but those differences of opinion were solved in a way that was almost miraculous by mutual concessions on each side. The result was that a balance was achieved which I think it would be most undesirable to modify. It is that balance that those of us who are concerned with the Bill are anxious should be retained and not upset by overloading one side as against the other. The only other point I would make is that under Clause 6 (2) of the Bill the Minister can refuse authorisation to do work if he is satisfied that there is good reason. Whether he would feel that this was a good reason, I do not know, but I suggest that it is a point to bear in mind. I have tried to explain our reasons for not feeling able to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment but I want to assure him that we have approached this matter with the greatest possible sympathy because of the strength of the objective behind his Amendment, an objective with which, I am sure, no one can find himself in disagreement. But, for the reasons which I have given, the Amendment does raise great difficulties and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Viscount will see his way not to press it, realising that we have reason for the line which we have taken.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. If he will allow me to say so it was one of the most helpful to which I have ever listened on occasions such as this when moving an Amendment. I must say, however, that I am disappointed in it, and I should like to point out one thing to the noble Lord. In regard to a compromise between frontagers and a local authority who, as in the instance he mentioned, said: "We cannot give the main services now but will give them later," there is this difficulty. The delay in delivery of the pipes required for the services (I am aware that this is a two-edged argument and that it can be used against me) makes it difficult for the local authority to say: "We will do this thing for you in a year's time, if you will be patient with us." Further, I think with regard to Clause 6 (2), to which Lord Marley referred, that the Defence Regulations—the noble Lord will correct me if I am at fault here—are not permanent legislation. Now we are dealing with a Bill which will become a permanent Act of Parliament, and I do not think it is a full answer to say that certain regulations which are annually renewed cover the point. I had hoped that the noble Lord would be able to suggest some compromise in the shape of an alteration in the period of ten years—that possibly a shorter period might be acceptable. However, in view of the full and careful explanation which he has given, I shall now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. But the noble Lord will understand that I am free to bring it forward again in a modified form on the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MARLEY

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, leave out ("fronting") and insert ("having a frontage").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.56 p.m.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to subsection (3): provided such part of a street is contiguous to a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment again is a perfectly simple one, and it is also one which I believe to be helpful. Although my noble friend has been obliged to harden his heart against the first of my Amendments, I hope that it may be rather softer when he applies himself to the second one. The matter is simple. The Amendment is designed to ensure that the local authority shall not be called upon to make up a stretch of road—and under the Bill they can be called upon to make up anything not less than one hundred yards in length—unless that stretch which they are asked to make into a road actually touches an existing highway which is maintainable by the local ratepayers.

I have—I will not say confidence, but at least some hope that other noble Lords will, in no Party spirit, feel that this proposition is not unreasonable. One finds the position where a building estate is developed, and where the builder has made a rough, hardcore track and then develops the estate in pieces. Under the Bill as it stands, small sections might have to be made up though they would not necessarily adjoin other made-up stretches. That in itself I think is bad. There is this further physical aspect of the matter. In such a case it would be asking the local authority to transfer machines and materials across roads which are unmetalled and not made up, in order to carry out its obligation in regard to a comparatively small stretch. My noble friend has been patient in listening to my argument, and he has suggested to me that Clause 6, may not be the proper place for this Amendment, and that means to ensure its purpose may be found by some modification of Clause 1. The noble Lord did not bind himself in any way to that, he merely said that it was a possibility. I hope that that is a possibility which, if he objects to my Amendment in its present form, he will not rule out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("provided such part of a street is contiguous to a high-way repairable by the inhabitants at large").— (Viscount Buckmaster.)

LORD MARLEY

The noble Viscount was again good enough to give us a great deal of assistance when we were discussing this matter. I am not going to pretend that we have passed a sleepless night over the possibility of transferring what he wants to Clause 1. But we have spent a good many hours upon the Amendment, because we have every sympathy towards it; and I think that possibly the noble Viscount will agree we have achieved some success. Let me try to explain the problem as we visualise it. I only wish I could agree that the matter is, as the noble Viscount said, "perfectly simple." I am afraid that to us it appeared neither perfect nor simple, but on the contrary imperfect and highly complicated. As I see the meaning of the Amendment, I visualise an area of land in which a projected street had to go down the middle. Perhaps three or four hundred yards from the nearest highway, in the middle of the area, an enterprising investor had bought a plot of land, and along the projected street had sold plots and built houses, with the resultant possibility of a demand for the making up of a road. In such a case (here is where I may give the noble Viscount some help) the local authority could act under Clause 1 (3) (e) of the Bill and exempt such houses from the Act, because clearly such a group of houses, without other houses on the line of the road would not—I quote the Bill: … justify the use of powers under the appropriate street works code for securing the carrying out of street works in the street or part thereof…. In the case which I visualise, I cannot help thinking that these houses could be exempted from the operation of the Act.

Another point occurred to me when I was thinking over the matter—namely, that often, when there is an unadopted street running at one end into a highway, there are corner plots reserved for an hotel or a public-house, or a shop or tea garden, or something of that sort; and it may be that we should never get such a road contiguous to a main road if that part were not made up. It would not affect the corner houses, because they have access to the main road, but they would not be anxious to join in paying for the making up of a road which would not be of benefit to them. Therefore, I should have thought that the local authority were covered against having to do unnecessary work. Here again. I think the Minister might have something to say about the waste of labour and materials involved in making up a long street merely because, three or four hundred yards away, a dozen houses have a hundred yards of road made up. I should have thought that Clause 6 (2) could be used. Of course, if the 100 yards or more which we have under consideration are only a very short distance from the highway, then there is presumably no reason why they should not have the road made up: it would not cost very much. But I think that would be precluded by the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount. For these reasons, I hope he may be able to see what is behind our difficulties, and will not press his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

From the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I am not at all clear how far Clause 1 (3) (e) affects this matter. Clause 1 (3) (e) exempts people who have either given security or have paid up in advance. Clause 6 provides, in the proviso to subsection (1): that this subsection shall not apply unless, in at least one case, a payment has been made or security has been given under section one of this Act… We are dealing with a later stage of this procedure, and I did not follow Lord Marley's explanation on that point. This clause says that if a majority of frontagers, at least one of whom has paid up or given security, demand that the road shall be made up, the local authority shall proceed to make it up; and that that will apply even to part of a street, so long as that part is not less than 100 yards in length, in which case it may be treated by the owners as constituting a street for the purposes of the Act. So, if the owners living in 100 yards or more of a street ask for it to be dealt with under Clause 6 of the Bill, unless there is a loophole in subsection (2) the local authority are bound to make up the street. The only point about this Amendment is this. Where a section of one of these private streets has no houses on it for the first 100 yards or so, and then has a 100 yards' stretch which—perhaps because of the better view, or because the owner of the land had been enterprising and had it fully built up—is developed, are the local authority required to make up that 100 yards, although it may still leave a rough unmade part of the road between it and the nearest road repairable by the inhabitants at large? The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, says it would be unreasonable to ask the local authority to make up one part of a street which does not connect with another street repairable by the inhabitants at large, and the noble Lord, Lord Marley, says that is quite reasonable. That is the short and simple point of this Amendment.

I find it very difficult to know which is the best way of dealing with this problem. It is not much good having a stretch of road made up in front of your house if you have to drive over the frightful potholes in an unmade road before you get your car to the door. I should have thought that subsection (3) (b) went a little far in allowing frontagers of even part of a street to compel the local authority to make it up, though they were not the majority of frontagers of the street as a whole and were not contiguous to a road repairable by the inhabitants at large. There is nothing of Party politics in this matter: it is all a question of common sense about what ought to be done. I should have thought the right way to deal with this problem was to make up a road from the point at which is was properly repairable. I think there is a great deal in the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has moved. In the light of that, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marley, will agree to look at it before the next stage of the Bill. I should think that the local authority organisations would be glad if he accepted the Amendment.

LORD MARLEY

I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the admirable clarity with which he has expressed the dilemma. I should have thought that it would be solved in that commonsense way in which we solve all these problems, by saying, first, that the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would make it impossible to complete the road demanded by the frontagers if it were not contiguous to a main highway; in other words, if there were fifteen feet between the end of the 100 yards demanded by the frontagers and the main highway, the local authority could not do it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Surely the noble Lord is wrong about that. The local authority could not be compelled to do it, but they could do it.

LORD MARLEY

I meant that they could not be compelled to do it. But not being compelled to do it, they might refuse altogether the request of the frontagers that the 100 yards should be built up. That would be unfair on people who had paid their money, but could not "take their choice." That is how it strikes me. I do not know whether I fully understood the noble Lord. Does he think that Clause 1 (3) (e) could not be applied? As I understand it Clause 1 (3) (e) deals with the exclusion from the operation of the Bill, of certain groups of people. When I said just now that we had achieved a balance in another place in the rival interests, that balance was achieved largely by adding paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and so on, to Clause 1 (3). Paragraph (e) says that Clause 1 shall not apply: … where the local authority, being satisfied that the street… is not likely within a reasonable time to become sufficiently built-up to justify the use of powers under the appropriate street works code for securing the carrying out of street works in the street or part thereof, by notice in writing exempt the building from this section. That means to say that if this financial magnate has purchased a field in the middle of the developing area, and sold off the plots cheaply because there is no access, making a good profit on the transaction, the local authority are free to say that the road is not likely to be made up, because it is a mile and a half long. And if, right in the middle of that length, a dozen cottages are going up, the owners of those cottages are exempted from the necessity of paying a frontage charge for the making up of a road which is never likely to take place. That is the reason why I thought the local authority were protected to the fullest possible extent against the case envisaged by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I understand that my interpretation is correct, and I hope that I have made myself clear.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Reading Clause 1 (3) (e), I thought that the kind of case to which this applied was a rather long country road with somebody building a couple of cottages—probably farm cottages, or something of that sort—somewhere towards the end of it, where there was no great likelihood that there would be any further building on the road; that it was not to be part of a built-up area, and, therefore, was not the kind of road that would be taken over under the Private Streets Works Act; and that you would not get the security from the person erecting the houses, because you would say: "We are never likely, in the foreseeable future, to make up this road, and there is no reason why you should put down any security for the buildings you are putting up." But when we come to Clause 6 we are getting to a later stage in development. It is clearly visualised in Clause 6 that part of a road, at any rate 100 yards in length, will be extensively built up, and that a majority of frontagers in that part can demand that their part of the road be built up, provided, of course, that one of them has given security. That road cannot have been exempt under Clause 1 (3) (e) because, if it had been, no security would have been demanded from anybody. Here under this clause there must be one of the frontagers who has paid up, or given security for the payment. I do not see that those two clauses will work in one with the other. Clause 6 of the Bill will apply to a different kind of street, and at a different stage of time, when it has been developed and is likely to be taken over by the local authority and made up under the Private Streets Works Act.

LORD MARLEY

I see that I have not made my point very clearly. All I meant to say was that the one man would not have paid his frontage charges, because he would have been excluded by Clause 1. However that may be, I think this is a case in which it would be wise for us to look into the matter again. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, will withdraw the Amendment, and will discuss the matter with us between now and the next stage of the Bill; and if the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, would also be willing to take part in those discussions, it would be most helpful.

VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord. May I say at once that I do not think we should fall out on the question which he raised of fifteen, twenty, or thirty yards separating the end built-up piece from the highway? Obviously I would gladly modify the Amendment in any way to meet that point. But, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I will gladly avail myself of the opportunity of a further discussion with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Extent of Act

(3) Where this Act is in force in any rural district,— (b) the rural district council shall inform the county council of the passing of any plans deposited with them relating to the erection of a building in any case to which section one of this Act may be applicable;

LORD MARLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, leave out ("to") and insert ("in")—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 9, leave out ("to") and insert (" in ")—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This is also a drafting Amendment, based on the fact that the responsibility for making up private streets rests with the county council who are the highway authority, but for bylaw purposes building plans have to be deposited with the rural district and not the county council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 15, leave out from ("one") to ("shall") and insert ("the reference in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of that section and the references in subsection (1) of section four and the first two references in subsection (3) of that section ").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This Amendment merely changes the order of words in the paragraph. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, after ("district council") insert (" in any case to which section one of this Act may be applicable ").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (3) (b) after "shall" to insert, "within one week." The noble Lord said: I believe that somewhere in this section it is laid down that the county council shall act within a month, but they cannot act until the rural district council have given them the necessary information. In that case, I suggest that the rural district council shall inform them within a week. It is the county council who have to do most of the work, and the rural district council, as the Bill is drafted, have no time limit within which to advise the county council. I am well aware that even if we impose a limit of a week, not much may be done about a rural district council who do not do it within that time. But when the clerk of a rural district council reads an Act of Parliament and sees that he is to do something within a week, he knows that at least he has to do it fairly promptly. If there is no time limit, the rural district council may just put it off for quite a long time and put the county council in a dilemma. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, after ("shall") insert (" within one week ").—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MARLEY

The promotors of the Bill are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the assistance he has given in this matter, and the Amendment can be accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This Amendment arises only because of the new drafting of Clause 4; otherwise it makes no difference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("building ") to end of line 20 and insert (" of the making of any declaration that the deposit of any such plans is of no effect or of the giving of any notice by an owner of his intention not to proceed with any building or to proceed with the building in accordance with the plans as originally deposited; ").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.24 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) The power of making orders under subsection (2) and subsection (4) of this seclion shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted applies only to boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales, but it can be extended to rural districts. At the moment it can be extended by a simple Order, which need neither be affirmed nor laid, on the Table of either House of Parliament, where, of course, it could be negatived within the appropriate time. To pass the Bill as drafted would mean passing an Act to apply to part of the country but which could be extended to other parts of the country without any information being given to either House of Parliament. Some people consider that the Order should need the affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. As your Lordships know, however, I am a very moderate chap, and so I have put down a much more moderate Amendment stating merely that the Order must be laid on the Table of the House. That will give an opportunity to a member of either House to raise the matter and say that the provisions of the Bill ought not to be extended to a particular area. By that means, if there happened to be a dispute between a rural district council and the county council of the area, there would be the forum of Parliament in which the dispute could be properly ventilated. I think it is just as well that in this moderate way Parliament should keep its fingers on the extension of this measure and should be able, if there were any local feeling about a new extension, to voice that feeling either in your Lordships' House or in another place. It is solely for those reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD MARLEY

Once again we are indebted to the noble Lord for the moderation of his approach and the acuteness of his analysis. I would remind him and the Committee that this measure applies also to the Isles of Scilly. If, therefore, there were any dissatisfaction in that remote area, this Amendment might save us from the selfdetermination of a former part of the United Kingdom.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Interpretation):

LORD MARLEY

The Amendment printed on the Marshalled List should read "leave out from the first ('shall')," because there are two "shalls" in the line referred to. The local authorities have to deal with two codes concerned with the making up of streets. This pro-vision ensures that the public shall be clearly informed as to which code is applicable to the particular street. I do not think it requires any further explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 16, leave out from the first ("shall") to the end of line 18 and insert (" in the case of any private street in the borough or district, by resolution determine whether the said local Act or such one of the other codes as is so in force is to be the appropriate private street works code for the purposes of this Act in relation to that street, and shall publish any such resolution by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating within the borough or district and otherwise in such manner as the council thinks sufficient for giving notice thereof to all persons interested").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MARLEY

This Amendment again deals with the definition of "frontage." The frontage of a garden upon the street will count as the frontage of the house. The opportunity has been taken to make it clear that joint owners of a piece of land are to be treated as one owner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 45 leave out subsection (2) and insert— (" (2) For the purposes of this Act the frontage of a building or proposed building on a street shall be deemed to be the frontage that the building itself and any land occupied or, as the case may be, proposed to be occupied with the building and for the purposes thereof has or will have on the street. (3) For the purposes of this Act joint owners shall be treated as one owner.")—(Lord Marley.)

5.30 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think that this involves any alteration in the existing law. If the contribution of persons under the Private Street Works Act is being determined, the frontage of their garden is taken as the frontage actually occupied by the house. I do not think we are making any alteration in the law by the definition now being moved, but I should like to be assured on that point.

LORD MARLEY

It is not easy to answer that question. I have a note here citing as an example "a garden which is occupied with and for the purposes of a house." That is really the point: "with and for the purposes of a house "—whatever that means. All I can say is that the frontage of such a garden on the street will count as the frontage of the house. If the noble Lord so desires, we will examine this matter and give him an answer to this abstruse problem at or before the next stage.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord read out the words with great emphasis, but I do not know what "occupying a garden for the purposes of a house" means. I do not know that the words are very apt, but if they are the words of the Private Street Works Act we had better stick to them. However, as the noble Lord says, we can look into the matter between now and the Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Short title and commencement]:

LORD MARLEY

This is the last part of this stage of the Bill. The interest in the Bill has been such that I fear we have had to change "July" to "October." It is a good thing that people should be interested in this rather difficult little measure. I submit that it is a good measure and that it is desirable that we should maintain agreement and give ample time for various questions to be settled now, and not afterwards, when the Bill has become law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 51, leave out ("July") and insert (" October ").—(Lord Marley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.