Mat 6, 1899.
GAZETTE,
The Chairman said : I do not think we need trouble you with any arguments on the Duke of Norfolk’s case.	, , ,, ,
Mr. Littler: I conclude from that that you have made up your mind in my favour, or you
׳would be bound to hear me.
The Chairman’s reply was not audible.
Mr. Pope having replied on behalf of the promoters, the opposition of the Vestry of Lambeth, for whom Mr. Wheeler, Q.C., appeared, which was directed to the re-housmg proposals of the County Council, was then con-
sidcrsd.
Mr. Alexander Young, valuer to the County Council, was called, and gave evidence to the effect that of the number of persons the scheme would displace, it was proposed to re-house 340 on a sit© in Lambeth, besides 78 already living
Cross-examined by Mr. Wheeler: The site of the new street would occupy about seven acres, and the recoupment area about II5 acres. Including Clare Market, the Council proposed to move over 5,000 persons. The area of i׳he Lambeth site was about half an acre, and was in a densely-populated situation.
I put it to you that it is a congested district as it is?
No ; the houses, although there may be a large number, have plenty of light and air. He agreed! that the London and South-Western Railway Company had a Bill pending for vastly improving their station accommodation in Lambeth. The railway company proposed to take 10 or 12 acres in Lambeth, and intended to displace a large number of people. He did not admit, however, that that would increase the pressure of population, because they would have to provide accommodation before they displaced those persons.
Why have you not re-housed these people on your spare 11 Jp acres ?
Because it would spoil the scheme. To put artisans' dwellings facing what !the Council hoped would be the finest street in London, would be a mistake, and much more costly than housing them in Lambeth.
Mr. Wheeler having addressed the Committee, !the proceedings were again adjourned. Upon resumption of the sitting on Tuesday, Mr. H. J. Smith, examined by Mr. Wheeler, Q.C., said he was now, and had been for 20 years, vestry clerk to Lambeth. The area of the parish of Lambeth was 4,000 acres, and the population something over 300,000, the rateable value being nearly £1,800,000. The County Council proposed to take about half an acre for the re-housing of some of the people displaced. The part of Lambeth to which the promoters proposed to go was extremely overcrowded, and there was not an available house to let in the district. Whenever, in fact, there was a house, or room, or rooms to let there were four or five people rushing after it. The half-acre to which he alluded consisted partly of stable yard and partly of houses occupied by persons of the labouring classes. The scale of rents there ran very high indeed. At present there were 70 persons living on this halfacre, and it was now proposed to bring 350 there to displace them. Lambeth had not sufficient housing accommodation for its own inhabitants in that neighbourhood, and the vestry thought that no further population should be brought there to displace the present residents.
Mr. H. Edwards, surveyor to the Lambeth Vestry, said the average number of population in London was 260 per acre, but if this scheme were carried out the average in the district affected would be 800.
Mr. Talbot then addressed the Committee for the promoters, and this concluded the case in reference to the Strand Improvement.
After deliberation, the Chairman announced that the Committee had decided to pass the preamble of ׳the Bill subject to the following conditions: — “ That the preamble is proved so far as regards the Strand and Holborn improvements ; that the land south of the Strand be excluded from the betterment area, also the property of the “Financial Times;” that the number of years in which betterment may be proved be limited to ten, namely, seven for works and three for improvement; that the llanes-inn property remain as proposed in ־.he Bill; that the making of the road remain in the hands of the County Council. It is not proposed to insert in !this Bill section 133 of the Lands Clauses Act, but that the׳ Sardinia-street works of the Metropolitan Electric Sup-plv Company be reinstated in such a way tha־ there be no interference with the business, and on such a site as will protect them from any proceeding for making a nuisance. With regard to Clause 20, the Committee think some Government authority should give a certificate of approval before property is taken under the valuation provided under section 21 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.”
Auctioneers and Estate Agents desiring to secure Partners, Purchase a Business, or engage Professional Assistance, should consult the “Wanted” Advertisements in the centre of the Paper.
,traffic would not necessarily cause the property to be bettered.
By Sir T. Gibson-Carmichael: He thought the first initial valuation should be made after the widening, and betterment would be the difference between the final valuation and the initial valuation after the new street was made.
Mr. Cecil Chapman, representing Lord Battersea and other owners of Danes-inn, called Mr. H. Lutchens, architect to the English Section of the Paris Exhibition, who produced plans of a new front elevation of Danes-inn, showing a scheme for the development by tn.e present owners of the property preserving the old buildin״s so that the present tenants should not be disturbed. The County Council proposed to include New Inn in their scheme for Danes-inn, but he saw no reason why New Inn should be included.	,
The Committee resumed consideration ot ,he Bill on Monday.
Mr. William Flower, examined by Mr. Chapman, said he was co-owner with Lord׳ Batter-sea and other gentlemen of Danes-inn, which was involved in the scheme of the County Council for recoupment purposes. The property was freehold, and in its present form was built 40 years ago. It was divided into eight separate houses, which were now approached by a passage from the Strand. The Inn was let to between 50 and 60 tenants, and there had been no difficulty whatever in letting the property, ,there being at present only one set of rooms
empty.	™
Mr. F. E. Eiloart, F.S.I., of 40, Chancery-lane, the manager for the owners of Danes-inn, said the area of Danes-inn ■was about 20,000 square feet, and the gross income from £2,300 to £2,500. In 1884 an offer for the property was made of £50,000. The area was quite suffi-cient to be dealt with in one scheme, which the London County Council could approve under the Building Act 'if they chose.
Mr. Pember, in addressing the Committee in support of the petition, said the area in question was a valuable family property, with which, unless an overwhelming public case was made out, owners objected very much to part. The Bill of the County Council seemed ,to contain in a most unjust manner the two counter theories of betterment and recoupment. He contended that neither theory was׳ ever intended by Pariament to do more than make the expense of a great improvement sit somewhat more lightly than it otherwise would do upon the public authority.
The case of the “Financial Times” was then taken.
Mr. W. Emden, President of the Society of Architects, and Chairman of the Strand׳ District Board of Works, said he designed the “ Financial Times ” buildings specially for the purpose for which they were used. Those buildings would not be benefited by the making of the new street, and to alter them so as to make them available for any other business would entail very great cost.
Mr. Ram, addressing the Committee, said this was a case in which the building ought not to be subject even to the risk of being included in the betterment area. Counsel was proceeding with his argument, when
The Chairman said : I do net think we need trouble you.
The Duke Of Norfolk’s petition was then proceeded with.
Mr. Edward Tewson, F.S.T. (Messrs. Deben-ham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80. Cheapside, E.C.), was the next witness.
Mr. Lewis Coward : What do you say as to the principle of betterment?
Witness: It is a feasible, plausible fallacy, but it is absolutely unworkable. As an arbitrator and as׳ a valuer, I say it would be impossible for me, and, I think, for any honest man, to carry out the provisions of this scheme. It has been tried in various parts of England and Scotland. I know it was tried in Edinburgh in the early part of the century, and was found to be absolutely unworkable. The fact that the claim! might hang over the heads of owners for seventeen years appeared to him a serious objection to the Betterment Clause, and one which would very much affect trustees and mortgagees. A proposal to widen a street did not necessarily mean that the street would be improved. The present streets gave a greater value to the southern side of the Strand than the widened street would give. At present the traffic passed along the southern side of the Strand ; but if the proposal were carried out the larger portion of the traffic would necessarily, in his opinion, go on the northern side, and tend to depreciate the value of the property on the south side.
Mr. Littler, in addressing the Committee on behalf of the Duke of Norfolk, said true and just betterment was an impossibility in this world, more especially in the City of London, where property was constantly changing in value from causes absolutely apart from the conditions of the property. Manchester had tried the scheme, but abandoned it. It passed the wit of man to devise a just scheme; and if they had betterment they should also have a universal scheme of worsement. Counsel was proceeding, when
E.C.), said he had acted as surveyor to the Duke of Bedford for many years. The London County Council first approached the Duke for the purpose of buying property on the east side or Southampton-row in 1897, and various negotiations took place, three important blocks of property being sold for widening the row־ and for housing the working-classes against the advisers of the Duke, and it was stated that no betterment charge would be imposed on the property in respect of the widening. He considered'that׳ they (the Duke’s advisers) made this proposal to avoid any question of betterment. Considering what the Duke gave up and the price paid, he thought it most unfair and unjust that an attempt should be made now to charge betterment on the western side. He did not think that property would be bettered by the new' street. He considered that the widening Of Southampton-row already decided upon would bring about some improvement׳. It was an annoyance that the property should be held up in suspense for a period of ten or seventeen years. He did not allege any breach of faith on the part of the Council now.
Mr. Robert Yigers, P.S.I. !Messrs. Tigers and Co., Old Jewry), said he did not think the new street would” improve Southampton-row, because of the class of property there now ; it might if it w־as vacant land. The betterment area under ׳the scheme was carried up Southampton-row 450ft. In his opinion, the shop at the corner of Holborn would not be bettered. He did not see where there was a certainty for a better rent being obtained for any one of the properties׳ owing to the new street. He could not see how an arbitrator could separate betterment which arose from widening Southampton-row and that which arose from this new street, or how they could draw׳ a line between the t׳wo improvements. The more he considered the matter, the more he felt he could not take part in such a valuation ; he was first called in by the Council on this matter and it was much against his interest, to give evidence! against them.
Mr. Pope, Q.C. : Nobody doubts your perfect honour.
Mr. Vigers added that a man who once received notice that his property was bettered could not leave it; the Council made him go before an arbitrator to state his! case, and left him with great costs to pay which would not be repaid ; they taxed the claimant’s costs and left him a large amount to pay. It was a still more serious question for the small man ; there might be no improvement after all, and yet lie would have lost his money in costs; he knew of a case where a man owning two small houses of £30 a year lost the whole in paying the costs of the initial valuation.
Mr. Thomas Phelps, who holds under the Duke of Bedford the property between South-ampton-street and Southampton-row, argued that in the assessment of betterment ■there would be insuperable difficulties in his case. He called
Mr. Edward Tewson, F.S.I. (Messrs. Deben-ham, Tewson, Farmer, and Bridgewater, oi 80, Cheapside, E.C.), who said he confirmed Mr. Yigers opinion as to the occupation and character of the Southampton-row property being small tenements. Apart from the widening of Southampton-row, the row (if left as Southampton-row would have been before the acquisition of the eastern side by the Council) could never have been brought into the betterment area. No one could allege that Southampton-row, 40ft. wide, could be benefited by a wide street 100ft. wide coming from the Strand ; the character of the houses and their occupation would defeat such a scheme!; it would be impossible to do it, being a narrow neck for a ,luge bottle, and therefore the widening of Southampton-row could not■ form any part or element which would prevail for the introduction ot betterment arising from the new street, for the purpose of which they had no right to assume that Southampton-row had! been or would be widened. For the purposes of this case Southampton-row must be as it originally stood. The increased traffic in a dense form, would make Southampton - row absolutely impassable. He said positively and absolutely that if Southampton-row had not been widened the Council could never have claimed betterment. By the agreement with the Duke of Bedford they were not to claim betterment because of the widening ; now they claimed it because the row was widened; he put it thus logically and it followed that betterment was not (to he claimed. The difficulty of severing the benefit• which might accrue to Southampton-row from the first widening and the introduction in this claim of 10,000 other elements rendered iit impossible for an arbitrator to decide, and this was an illustration of what the difficulties of an arbitrator would be.
The Chairman: Does it always follow that large thoroughfares opening up great centres to stations, say, in the north, have been improved in value inside the whole length ? Take Euston-square and the north-west: of London for instance?
Mr. Tewson : There is no street in London which was so little improved as Marylebone-road. It■ does not always follow. A through
LONDON IMPROVEMENTS.
NEW STREET FROM HOLBORN TO THE STRAND.
The Select Committee of the House of Commons, over which Mr. A. H. Brown is presiding, and which is inquiring into the merits of the scheme of the London County Council for the construction of a new avenue and other :m. provements between Holborn and the Strand, continued their investigation on Friday, when the case for the opponents of the measure—the London Improvements Bill—was proceeded with.
Mr. E. H. P. Eason, of the firm of Reynolds and Eason, auctioneers and valuers, 43,
Bishopsgate-street Without, examined by Mr. Ram, said he had had great experience in buy-in״ and selling property in London. He considered that for the purpose of the proposed new road alone an abnormal amount of property was to be taken, and seven acres of property out of the 25 acres within the limits of deviation would be put out of rating. The loss in respect of that property would fall on the ratepayers of the Strand, and when the! improvement׳ was effected and the rates developed again it would be of little or no advantage to those ratepayers. The County Council should make the 133d section of the Lands Clauses Act applicable. Under it the local authority making the improvement would recoup the district for the loss of rates.
Mr. Ram : Do you agree with !the! principle of the betterment clause?
Witness: Not at all. I consider it unjust, inexpedient, and unworkable. Witness added that if the propeity improved in value in consequence of the improvement, it would be more practicable and fairer for the matter to be dealt with by the parish. He was in favour of applying the principle of recoupment.
In cross-examination by Mr. Talbot, for the London County Council, witness׳ said he objected in toto to the principle of betterment.
Do you consider th&it the recoupment scheme proposed by the Bill is a fair one?
I do not know that it will be a fair one, but it will be a profitable one.
Mr. Eason also pointed out that costs arising from the valuations would be imposed on owners, who would have the betterment question hanging over their heads for seventeen years ; capital would be diverted from the land in consequence of new liabilities and doubts, whilst in his opinion the Council would put in their own pockets the amounts that should go ro the local authorities during that time. Not only would profit be diverted from the property charged with betterment to other owners not charged with betterment, but, from his experience in other improvements, there would be actual loss all round, although the owners were certainly entitled to the betterment they paid for.
Mr. Glenny, a member of the firm of Thresher and Glenny, outfitters in the Strand, adjoining Somerset. House, examined by Mr. Baggallay, Q.C., stated that׳ his business was largely dependent on passing traffic. He could not see how his premises could possibly be bettered by the carrying out of the new street; on the contrary, he thought it would be injured, as any traffic passing down the two arms of the new thoroughfare into the Strand would be taken away from lvis shop.
Cross-examined: Of course, if there was an improvement he would not mind !laying.
Mr. Fisher, a member of the firm of Fishers, Limited, dressing-case makers at the corner of Arundel-strect, Strand, thought it very unfair that he should be called on twice to face the possibility of fighting the County Council over the question of betterment. He held ith e view that the new street would very seriously affect property on the south side of the Strand. If there were more modern shops׳ erected on the north side, as he understood was to be the case, the passengers! would go to the nonth side instead of the south side, as at present.
Mr. Baggallay then addressed the Committee for the Strand District Board of Works, contending that this was a London improvement which ׳would connect the great railway termini in the north with those of the south. A case analogous to it was the driving of the Queen Yictoria-street through large blocks of property for the purpose of doing the same thing in the east and west. As to betterment, he contended that it ought not to be tried in the case of the Strand District Board area. At any rate, it would be dangerous ׳to try it until the working out of the clauses׳ already authorised had been tested in practice.
Mr. D. G. McRae, Managing Director of the “ Financial Times,” whose premises are proposed to be included within the betterment area of the Bill, said the access׳ to the new street would not be of any benefit to his firm.
Mr. Ernest Moon, on behalf of the Duke of Bedford, urged that the property on the western side of Southampton-row should be excluded from the betterment area of the Bill, contending that the principle was too uncertain for application.
Mr. Henry Wood, E.S.I. (of Messrs. Bead el, Wood and Co., 97, Gresham-street,