Makch 11, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
394
particularly that part in which the taking of land for the purposes of light railways was dealt with, had proved most interesting to him. Such railways were no doubt most useful and beneficial, but it was highly important that their construction should involve as small an outlay of capital as possible. Unless goods could be carried cheaply and effectually, light railways would be of no use to the farmer. It must be left to the promoting company to make their railway suitable to the district through which it ran. The question of betterment was of the greatest importance and ought to be thoroughly considered by all interested in light railways.
Mr. A. G. Rickards (Associate, London) seconded. He agreed entirely with Mr. Smith’s remarks as to the difficulty experienced by arbitrators in arriving at the different beneficial value. Mr. Smith had stated that he could not admit the justice of imposing any improvement charge exclusively on owners who claimed compensation, whilst others, having no claim, but who might be equally benefited, were not called upon to contribute a share in the cost of the railway. He presumed Mr. Smith meant the owners whose land was actually taken. If so, he thoroughly agreed with him. One of the faults of the law was that it placed two owners whose land was equally damaged on a different footing.
Mr. H. W. Touse, C.E. (Visitor), remarked that lie was deeply interested in the subject under discussion. Mr. Smith had touched upon many points which were particularly interesting to him as an engineer. With regard to betterment, engineers had perhaps more to do with it than surveyors. The cost of construction was of the highest importance. In laying out a light railway, an engineer had not only bo consider the difficulties and the adaptability of the country through which it was to pass, but also the value of the adjoining property.
Mr. J. L. Crouch (Professional Associate, London) also supported the vote of thanks. He remarked that the Board of Trade had never sanctioned any section in the Act where the promoters had not avowed their intention of carrying goods.
Mr. W. H. Warner (Fellow, London) said that much had been said as to the desirability of having the light railway constructed as cheaply as possible. It had been mentioned in the paper that in a case where a line was to be run through an agricultural district it was estimated that the owners would receive the magnificent sum of £100 per acre. He was sorry he was not the possessor of agricultural land in that part of the country.
Mr. L. R. S. Walcott (Fellow, London), a member of the Middlesex County Council, also took part in the discussion, and referred to the difficulties experienced by that authority in fighting against promoting companies who endeavoured to secure the land without paying for it. Owing to the congested state of the traffic in the outlying districts of the metropolis, it would be absolutely impossible to run tramways under the Act along some of the routes suggested. He was afraid that in some of the poorer districts it would be found difficult to raise the necessary capital.
The discussion then ended.
Mr. Smith, in the course of his reply, said that light railways׳ were a new and interesting subject, and he had prepared his paper in the hope that it would prove useful to the members of the Institution, particularly those in the country.
There lias just been issued by the Institution a number of the Professional Notes comprising a supplement dealing more particularly with matters connected with and arising out of Scottish practice. We understand that it is proposed for the present to limit the supplement to reports of Scottish law cases, short notes on subjects of interest to members, and such other matter as may be available. The profession in Scotland, as in England, may be said to embrace the three classes of land agents, valuers and measuring or quantity surveyors, and in order that the Notes should reach its maximum utility, it is hoped that all the members of the Scottish committee will co-operate with the secretary by contributing any special knowledge they possess to the common stock of information. It will be remembered that the introduction of a complete system of professional examinations adjusted to Scottish practice was the essential condition of the exercise of the dispensing power in favour of eligible candidates in Scotland applying for the privilege of membership before December 31 of last year. The details of these examinations having been settled by conference with the Scottish committee, it has been thought desirable to publish them as part of the new supplement. This, we may add, is another addition to the large number of publications issued from time to time from the offices of the Institution, and to the duties devolving upon the secretary, Mr. Julian 0. Rogers, a fact which makes the excellence and correctness of this and other publications the more noteworthy.
parative statement of the difference between railways constructed under the various methods laid down by the Act and their effect upcn property and owners. Dealing with
THE ORDER ׳OP THE LIGHT RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS,
he said it was incumbent on the promoters to prepare and submit to the Light Railway Commissioners a draft Order for construction in the months of May and November. The essential details required for such Order did not come within the province of his paper ; but he would point out one or two salient features which had come under his observation. Copies of the draft Order as submitted must be lodged with the Clerk of the Council of every county, borough, district or parish through which the proposed light railway would pass, together with plans and maps delineating the railway, and an estimate of the cost of the line, including acquisition of the land. These were to be open for inspection within stipulated hours. Notices of intended applications for an Order must be served, in the months of April and October, on all owners, and lessees, and occupiers of lands intended to be taken, or within the limits of deviation; and, with the notice, an inquiry whether owners and others assent to, or dissent from, their land being taken, and the nature of objections. All parties interested had therefore time and opportunity for making themselves acquainted with every detail of the draft Order relating to the proposed light railway. The draft Order was examined to ascertain if the project be of special interest to owners and occupiers, who with surveyors or agents, were considering what effect the proposed railway would have on their property according to the terms of the Order, and whether they should support or object to the railway. Thus prepared, they attended before the Light Railway Commissioners, at the public local inquiry held to hear the promoters in support of their proposed railway, and those in opposition thereto. In the event of the Commissioners granting the Order they were to settle such Order by revision, and add, if necessary, any provisions consistent with the Act. It was then accepted as the Provisional Order of the Light Railway Commissioners. The Provisional Order was in due time submitted to the Board of Trade, by whom it might be further modified and revised. The next step was for the Board of Trade to give public notice of the Order in such manner as they think fit. Such notice would state that any objections to the confirmation of the Order must bo lodged with them by a given date. After consideration of any objections in the manner set out, the Order might be confirmed by the Board of Trade. The Order would then be equal in effect to a special Act of Parliament.
Mr. Smith went on to give a brief description of the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway, and to refer to its estimated cost. In conclusion he dealt with
THE FUTURE OF LIGHT RAILWAYS
and prophesied that if the signs of the times fairly indicated probabilities, they might at least look for a considerable number of light railways in the course of the next few years. Their financial success, however, depended entirely upon the purposes for which they might be constructed, and on their mode of construction, management, working with existing railways, facilities for public use, and general convenience. All legal costs for acquiring powers to construct should be simple and inexpensive, and disbursed by the State where light railways were constructed for ;he public benefit. Free grants in aid might also be made by the State to local councils ; who, alone, or jointly with private companies, might construct light railways, where it could be shown that such railway was a public boon, and will be beneficial to agriculture, or any definite industry defined by the Act. The promoting company would meet a pressing need if they provided suitable trucks for carrying producers’ loaded vans or wagons over the rails, without breaking bulk; and also receive for transit, at their stations or stopping places, small parcels and goo’ds, at fixed times, and at graduated rates of charges. In this manner whole truck loads of produce and goods might be collected and forwarded to destination. Facilities such as these would induce the farmer, market gardener, and trader, to co-operate and avail themselves of lower rates, thus enabling them the better to compete with the foreigner who gets his produce to market under what are known as “preferential rates,” for imported produce. Then there was the desirable co-operation of landowners and tenants, with private companies, or existing railway companies (under even conditions), and he ventured to add, of engineers and surveyors; for, as two heads were better than one, in laying out a line, the engineer’s eye might not at all times see that which was evident to the surveyor.
THE DISCUSSION.
Mr. George Langridge (Member of the Council, Tunbridge Wells), in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Smith, remarked that the paper,
not already served by a railway with station accommodation within five miles, and it could be proved that the station or works of the light railway would effect a permanent increase in the value of the land. It was obvious that■ an existing railway company might construct a light railway for purposes of connecting their branch with main lines, and for relieving congested traffic on such lines, or for the extension of an existing or new ordinary railway made contemporaneously with their light railway, or for the purpose of opening up new country mainly for the benefit of the company. Was it ever contemplated that the great railway companies would avail themselves of the Act by procuring an inexpensive “ Order ” for purposes referred to, and then institute claims for betterment! Again, local authorities, corporations, or companies other than ordinary railway companies, might construct light railways for which grants of land and other facilities had been given by persons locally interested in the construction of a light railway. Any such proposed railway coming before the Light Railway Commissioners at the time of an application for an Order, might not be wholly opposed by the respective owners of the land. Some owners might tacitly approve of its construction by their significant neutrality, while others would agree under modified conditions, consistent with a variety of circumstances differing with each class of property taken by the railway. An arbitrator might therefore have to consider, first, the objects of a promoting company (being an existing railway company) in constructing a light railway for the purposes referred to ; secondly, the observance of similar conditions, and whether local authorities and others had received free grants of land and other facilities for the construction of their light railway ; thirdly, whether in such cases and under such circumstances an arbitrator would be justified in regarding the “ extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the proposed light railway,” with a view to assessing for betterment.
THE ״ EXTENT” OF BENEFICIAL VALUE.
With all deference to the judgment of others, he submitted that an existing railway company constructing a light railway for the purpose of joining a branch with main lines, for the relief of congested traffic, or for extensions, or other purposes necessary to its own interests and convenience, was not necessarily entitled to any consideration for betterment above the amount (if any) added for compulsory sale of the land taken. This, he thought, was the intention of the Act, and was the extent to which any public improvement had hitherto gone, with the exception of some few' isolated cases which formed no precedent for light railways. Practically the same remarks applied to light railways constructed by local authorities and others, under sections 2 and 3 of the Act, where it could be shown that owners had given free grants of land (or otherwise facilitated the construction of a light railway) to an extent that w׳ould counterbalance any question of betterment. In such cases to give any substantial consideration for betterment would be to impose on the good nature of owners who gave their land.
There were some persons who held very extreme views in regard to the extent of beneficial value, or betterment of agricultural estates, and who pointed to great advantages and improvements derived from ordinary railways constructed many years ago, and assumed that light railways would have the same effect. They contended that where an owner was entitled to compensation for damage by reason of severance or injuriously affecting, the accruing benefit derived from the railway should be taken as an equivalent against such damage, and that the value of the land only should be taken into account. He could not construe section 13 of the Act in this way. The improvements following the construction of ordinary railways had been a gradual process covering a”period of many years, enhanced and extended by expenditure of large sums made in more prosperous days of agriculture, probably under “protection” and the good years following the advent of “ free trade.” It was needless to ask, “What is !he present condition of agriculture?” In those times the system of “ preferential rates ” (defensible¡ though it may possibly be) was either unheard of, or did not affect British agriculture as it did now. A suggestion by a promoting company, made previous to the confirmation of an “ Order,” to the effect that betterment should outset damage by reason of severance and injuriously affecting, would be to court the opposition of owners who were not personally interested in the light railway, and to defer the matter will probably result in arbitration ; therefore owners should, if possible, have the betterment question settled before the Order was granted, and so avoid disputes.
Proceeding, Mr. Smith passed under review the ways and means adopted by the Act for the construction of light railways, in providing tiie necessary capital and the repayment of loans and advances. He afterwards submitted a com-
0TIj£ üitrbujors Unstiittürrn.
THE LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
The ordinary general meeting of the above-named Institution was held at the temporaiy premises, Savoy-street, W.C., on Monday evening, when Mr. F. J. Smith (Fellow, Southampton), read a paper on “ The Working of the Light Railways Act, 1896.” The chair was occupied by Mr. T. M. Rickman, Vice-President, in the absence of the President, Mr. Robert Vigers, and there were also present: —
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.—Messrs. Howard Martin and J. H. Sabin.
FELLOWS.—Messrs. T. H. Mellor, J. W. Taylor, Arthur Harston, G. H. Jordan, Gilbert Gardner, Martin Vigers, H. Hunt, A. G. Rickards, J. Whitton-Aris, Lewis H. Strouts, Leo. W. Goodwyn, J. H. Slier-win, H. O. Bell, A. C. Martin Cross, W. II. Warner, H. C. Webster, C. P. Oakley, and Roland A. Dash.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES.—Messrs. J. C. L. Bettridge, Arthur Allsebrook, J. H. Shearer, H. T. Scoble, C. S. Orwin, G. H. Smith, J. L. Crouch, Edwin B. B. Newton, H. T. Chalcraft, Wm. Cudlipp, Frank Melrose, Guy Nicholson, W. T. Lamprill, E. Wells,, Herbert J. Watson, and Joseph Stower.
STUDENTS.—Messrs. Chas. Living, jun., and Harry Mitchell.
VISITORS.—Messrs. W. R. Davidge, P. Adam־, B. A. Boyton, E. T. Turt, G. R. Warner-Terry, G. W. Gouldsmith, J. D. Roney-Douglas, H. W. Towse W. Pettigrew, W. C. Warner, J. Hopstroff, and. W. Butcher.
Mr. Smith, in preparing his paper, had confined himself to the Act in connection with the first light railway authorised by order of the Commissioners, subsequently confirmed by the Board of Trade. He did not attempt to deal with the Act or “ order ” from a legal point of view, but only as affecting the practice of a surveyor. At the outset he referred at some length to some of the most important sections of the Act on which the “ order ” of the Light Railway Commissioners is based ; and explained fully the method of proceeding to arbitration. Under the heading of
IMMEDIATE BENEFICIAL VALUE.
he placed residential properties and purely agricultural estates having no special adaptability for improvement or development other than for residential and agricultural purposes. He said that any benefit likely to be felt and appreciated would be due entirely to facilities for goods and passenger traffic given by the promoting company, and any value accruing therefrom must be evidenced by a saving in the working expenses of the property, improved rental and personal convenience. It might be fairly assumed that where light railways were constructed they would be of no great length, and would not therefore open up any large tracts of country, such as ordinary railways have hitherto done. Section 9, sub-section (3), of the Act conveyed all impression that the Board cf Trade would not confirm any Order for a light railway where the undertaking was of such magnitude that it should be submitted to Parliament in the ordinary way. Consequently, agricultural estates situate within, say, five or even seven miles from existing railway stations, would hardly appreciate any saving in horses or expenses. Farms might let more readily; but it was a question whether they would command a higher rent under a declining agriculture, as was apparent from the number of farms let at the present time at greatly reduced rents, and situate at short distances from railway stations. As regards personal convenience, much would depend upon the service of trains. It ■might be urged that a light railway would provide means of transit for agricultural produce, feeding stuffs, and manures, and thus enhance the value of contiguous lands; but unless that value could be made to augment the rental the improvement would be altogether illusory to an owner. It would be assumed that corn farms might be profitably converted into dairy farms, subject, of course, to the land being laid down to grass, and suitable buildings, fences, and water provided by the owner. But this involved an outlay which at three per cent, would give a sum exceeding any benefit derivable from a light railway as improved rental. There was a general agreement of opinion among members of the Institution, supported by railway managers and others, that light railways would not raise the fallen fortunes of our agricultural friends to any appreciable extent; and, if not, the logical conclusion is that owners of agricultural estates would not be very much benefited in consequence.
DEFERRED BENEFICIAL VALUE.
Any future betterment due to the construction of a light railway could only apply to lands which could be developed for building purposes, or for the working of mines and quarries, or for any other such purpose, and where, by special arrangement, the promoters provided stations, sidings, or other accommodation works, such as might be exclusively used for the benefit of the property for which they are intended. The subject of ultimate enhanced value of agricultural or residential estates might also come under this head, provided such estates were