View report page

176
Contributions
to
schemes of
metropolitan
borough
councils.
houses not completed before 1st October, 1927, from £6 to £4 a year for each house for
20 years under the Housing, etc., Act. 1923, and from £9 to £7 10s. a year for each
house for 40 years under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
The Order also provides that the maximum amount of the grants which may
be made by the Council towards the cost of housing schemes undertaken by
metropolitan borough councils shall be reduced from £3 to £2 a house a year for 20
years under the Act of 1923, and from £2 5s. to £1 17s. 6d. a house a year for 40 years
under the Act of 1924.
The Council in 1923 decided to supplement the State contribution towards
housing schemes carried out by metropolitan borough councils under the Housing,
etc., Act, 1923, but in view of the increased amount of the Exchequer grant under the
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, the Council did not at first think it
desirable to make a similar supplemental grant under the latter Act, and this view was
supported by a majority of the borough councils at a conference on the subject on
24th March, 1926. Owing, however, mainly to the increased cost of building and
the rate of interest on borrowed money it became generally impracticable to
restrict the loss to the rates on housing schemes in London to the amount (£4 10s. a
house a year for 40 years) which was contemplated when the Act of 1924 was
formulated. In these circumstances the Council decided on 20th July, 1926, to
supplement the State grant in respect of future schemes of the City Corporation or
any metropolitan borough council under the Act of 1924 which involve a charge
upon the local rate exceeding £4 10s. a house a year for 40 years, by a contribution
in suitable and approved cases of a sum from the general county rate not
exceeding £2 5s. a house a year for 40 years. This maximum contribution, however,
as indicated above, will be modified in the case of houses not completed
before 1st October, 1927, in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Acts
(Revision of Contributions) Order, 1926.
Legislation.
Section 39 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1926, confers
on the Council the power to provide and maintain in connection with any of its
housing schemes in the County of London any building or part of a building adapted
for use for any commercial purpose, provided that no such building shall be erected
in any metropolitan borough except after consultation with the Council of the
borough concerned. On 9th November, 1926, the Council decided to promote
legislation in the session of 1927 to repeal this proviso, and extend the power
of the Council to buildings outside the County of London, and also to obtain a
similar power for the metropolitan borough councils in connection with any
housing schemes within their respective boroughs.
Clearance
schemes—
Trade compensation.
A decision of considerable importance, affecting the general question of trade
compensation in respect of properties required for clearance schemes under Part II.
of the Housing Act, 1925, was given by the High Court during the year. The claim
of Mr. G. J. Northwood, the lessee and licensee of the " Freemasons' Arms " publichouse,
No. 45 Pereira-street, and the lessee of the adjoining premises, No. 47 Pereirastreet,
in the Brady-street area, and the claim of Barclay, Perkins and Company,
Limited, his mortgagees, were referred to arbitration. Both these premises were
included in the Brady-street scheme on account of their sanitary condition, and not
merely for making the scheme efficient. At the arbitration proceedings it was
contended on behalf of the claimants that the compensation should include a sum
for trade disturbance or loss of licence, and a special case was stated by the arbitrator
for the decision of the High Court on this question.
The decision of the Court was to the effect that the arbitrator was not entitled
to award any sum for trade disturbance, loss of licence or trade fixtures ; that he
was not entitled to award a greater sum than he otherwise would in respect of the
site value of the premises because a portion of the premises was licensed for the sale
of excisable liquors ; and further, that, apart from any question of the premises