BARLOW, SCOTT, UTHWATT, PLANS FOR POST WAR BRITAIN.

Most vial and important of all the reconstruction problems that would face Britain after the War was that of the proper use and development of the country’s land, the material basis and foundation of the national life.

Three Government appointed inquiries were made into the question, each dealing with a particular aspect, and their Reports, known in common speech as Barlow, Scott, and Uthwatt from the names of the respective Chairmen, are summarized here.

Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population (Cmd.6153 published January 31^st, 1940).

          In its terms of reference the Commission appointed in July 1937 and presided over by Sir, Montague Barlow, was required ( a) to inquire into the causes which have influenced the present geographical distribution of the industrial population of Great Britain and the probable  direction of any change in that distribution in the future, ( b) to consider what social, economic or strategical disadvantages arise from the concentration of industries or of the industrial population in large towns or in particular areas of the country and ( c) to report what remedial measures, if any should be taken  in the national interest.

          First it reviewed the background.

          The seven chief industrial ( it reported), representing together barely more than a quarter of the country’s area, contained in 1931 as much as 73 per cent of the occupied population and in 1937 no less than 79 per cent of the total number of persons insured against unemployment.

          London and the Home Counties, with about a quarter of the area of Great Britain, contained 26 per cent of the insured population in 1937, the number of insured persons increasing by 1,032,000 in the period of 1923-1937, while in the same period the other principal industrial areas (with the exception of the West Midlands) all lost ground relatively and in some cases absolutely .as judged by the number of insured persons in them.

          With the technological development and the growth of economic nationalism the importance of the heavy industries as providers of employment has declined, while at the same time there has been a rapid growth of new industries as a result of inventions and the rise in the standard of living, which have tended to establish themselves as near as possible to the chief market for their products which, in the nature of things has also offered the advantage of an ample supply of labour of all kinds.

          Such facts as these led to the conclusion that the disadvantages in many, if not in most, of the great industrial concentrations, alike on the strategical, the social and the economic side, do constitute serious handicaps and even in some respects dangers to the nation’s life and development.

          It was unanimously decided that.

          National action is necessary, a Central Authority, national in scope and character, is required, whose activities should be distinct from and extend beyond those within the powers of any Government department.

          The objectives of any existing Government department.

          The objectives of national action should be (a) continued and further redevelopment of congested urban areas, where necessary (b)decentralization or dispersal, both of industries and industrial population , from such areas, (c) encouragement of a reasonable balance of industrial development coupled with appropriate diversification of industry in each division or region throughout the country

          The continued drift of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constitutes a social, economic and strategical problem which demands immediate attention.

          The Central Authority should examine forthwith and formulate the policy or plan to be adopted in relation to decentralization or dispersal from congested urban areas in connexion with such issues as garden cities or garden suburbs, satellite towns, trading estates, further development of existing small towns or regional centres, etc.

          In all cases provision being made for the requirements of industry and the social and amenity needs of the communities, the avoidance of unnecessary competition , and the giving of due weight to strategical considerations.

          Without excluding private enterprise municipalities should be encouraged to undertake such development, if found desirable on a regional rather than on a municipal basis, and they should be assisted by Government funds, especially in the early years.

          All existing and future Planning Schemes should be subject to the Central Authority’s inspection with a view to possible modification.

          The Government should appoint a body of experts to examine the questions of compensation betterment and development generally.

          “Out of this recommendation the Uthwatt Committee arose”.

          The Central Authority should study the location of industry with a view to anticipating cases where depression may occur in the future (e.g. the armament industries when normal peace conditions are definitely secured), and encouraging before a depression crisis arises the development in such cases of other industries crisis arises the development in such cases of other industries or public undertakings.

          The majority of the Commission agreed finally to recommend that a new National Authority – The National Industrial Board, should be established by statute for the purpose of making research into, advising upon, and regulating the location of industry.

The Board should vested from the outset with powers to regulate the establishment within London and the Home Counties of additional industrial undertakings, and provision should be made for the extension of this power to other areas by Order in Council.

          A Minority Report advocated the grant of these powers so far as the whole country is concerned to a Minister of Cabinet rank, who should be the head, not of a Board but of a specially created new Department of State.

REPORT OF LORD JUSTICE SCOTT’S COMMITTEE

Committee on Lord Utilization in Rural Areas (Cmd.6378, published August 15^th 1942).

The Committee whose Chairman was Lord Justice Scott, was appointed in October 1941 by Lord Reith, Minister of Works and Buildings, with a view to considering the conditions which should govern building and other constructional development in country areas consistently with the maintenance of agriculture, and in particular the factors affecting the location of industry, having regard to economic operation, part time and seasonal employment, the wellbeing of rural communities and the preservation of rural amenities.

The committee made the “basic assumptions” that Government policy, includes the establishment of a Central Planning Authority, the encouragement of industry and commerce, the maintenance of a prosperous agriculture, the resuscitation of village and country life, and the preservation of amenities.

They concluded that, if no Government action were taken, industry and the necessary housing would continue to establish it on the peripheries of the great population centres leading in particular to the still greater growth of London and Birmingham.

But the drift of population to the towns can be countered by so improving housing and general living conditions, and so equalizing economic, social and educational opportunities in town and country that those who prefer country life will no longer find themselves and their children at a “preserved,” the land of Britain should be both useful and beautiful ideals which are in no sense incompatible.

At the head of a list of “positive proposals” was put the improvement of rural housing.

Electricity should be made available throughout the countryside at prices no higher than in town.

Gas too should be extended, to rural areas.

Tied cottages should be reduced to the minimum.

Every large village should have its main water supply, and farms should have piped water.

Every village should have adequate playing fields, and social centres of the village college type should be provided throughout the country.

There must be facility of access for all to the countryside, but this must not interfere with the proper use of land in the national interest.

The urban public, landowner’s mutual understanding.

National Parks should be established under the appropriate Central Authority, and also nature reserves and camps for motorists and cyclists of moderate means.

As regards industry in rural areas (a) the locations of the extractive and many heavy industries are determined by immutable physical conditions which may sometimes necessitate their coming to country areas, and planning should be directed towards details of site, buildings and disposal of waste, (b) though many light industries are theoretically |”mobile” they are in practice tied  to a limited choice of localities, where they are brought into rural areas they should be located in existing or new small towns rather than in villages or the open countryside, (c) rural trades and crafts or hand manufactures should on the other hand be located in villages and should be encouraged.

As a rule, industry should be encouraged first to make use of vacant or derelict sites in towns.

The use of good agricultural land for building should be avoided whenever possible.

[But a Minority Report by Professor S. R. Dennison expressed the view that it should not be accepted as a necessary principle that construction in the countryside must be prevented in order to maintain agriculture or to preserve amenities, the introduction of industry into the countryside, under effective planning control, could be of considerable benefit to rural communities, and some measure of it should be encouraged].

Although “there is no magic in a specified number of years…. Much that we have recommended can and should be completed within five years and hence, it is suggested that a definite five year plan be formulated”.

This would be dependent upon the passing of the necessary legislation before the zero – hour of the plan, which should coincide with the cessation of hostilities.

REPORT OF MR JUSTICE UTHWATT

Expert Committee on Compensation and Betterment Final Report (Cmd .6386, published September 10^th 1942).

Appointed in January 1941 by Lord Reith. in response to a recommendation by the Barlow Commission, the Committee was required (first) to make an objective analysis of the subject of the payment of compensation and recovery of betterment in respect of public control of the use of land, and also of the subject of the payment of compensation on the public acquisition of land, and (second) to advise what steps should be taken to prevent the work of reconstruction after the war from being prejudiced.

The Committee was presided over by the Hon. Mr Justice Uthwatt, and in July 1941 submitted an Interim Report.

In the Final Report post war reconstruction is viewed as the rebuilding of war devastated areas combined with the complete reconstruction of areas combined with the complete reconstruction of areas that, urgently need modernizing to meet present day requirements.

It is assumed that there will be national planning with a high degree of initiation and control by the Central Planning Authority, and that this national planning will be directed to ensuring that the best use is made of land with a view to securing that the best use is made of land with a view to securing economic efficiency for the community and well being for the individual, and that it will be recognized that this involves the subordination to the public good of the personal interests and wishes of landowners.

Undeveloped Land,

i.e. rural land, or land that is not built on.

To secure its utilization to the best advantage there must be a balanced allocation to the various uses, including (1) reservation for agriculture, (ii) preservation of open spaces, playing fields, coastal areas, national parks, areas of scenic beauty, ect, ( iii) requirements of transport, roads, railways, aerodromes, (iv) requirements of defence,(v) new building developments, including perhaps completely new centres of living.

The most suitable land for the particular purpose must be selected irrespective of the existing values which may attach to individual parcels of land.

This will involve sterilization from building of much land which, if unrestricted, would command a high price for development.

Such action is practically impossible at present because of the liability placed on the local planning authority for compensating all the landowners concerned for deprivation of development value.

Here two facts must be borne in mind. (i) Potential development value created by the expectation of future development is spread over many more areas than are actually required for developed.

It is a “floating value,” whose place of settlement it is impossible to predict, but it affects the compensation payable both on the public acquisition of undeveloped land and on the imposition of restrictions on the use of land, and plays a large part in the unwillingness of authorities to incur claims for compensation.

(i) Wisely imposed planning control does not diminish the total sum of land values, but merely redistributes them, i.e. it gives rise to “shifting value”.

If land with potential development value is purchased by a local authority or is restricted against development, compensation has to be paid for individual loss of land values which have not in fact been destroyed but which have only shifted to other land.

In addition where the land belongs to a number of owners, the aggregate of values claimable by individual owners when separately assessed, owing to the factor of “floating value”, greatly exceeds the real loss of the claimants taken as a group.

On the other hand betterment cannot be collected to any substantial degree in respect of the shifted values because it is impossible to say with certainty whether, and to what extent, a given land value is attributable to a given cause.

Developed Land, i.e built on land.

Here the main requirements are (i) widening of existing roads, elimination of bottle necks ect. (ii) provision of open spaces, (iii) rebuilding of bombed areas , slum and overcrowded areas ect, (iv) rehousing of population displaced from rebuilt areas, (v) provision of amenities and cultural facilities ,schools, libraries, cinemas, ect, (vi) provision of industrial necessities ,docks, offices, factory sites ect,

Interference with existing users and buildings is much greater than in the case of undeveloped land, and the financial cost of compensation may well be enormous, since acquisition in developed areas involves payment not only for the land but for existing buildings which may have to be demolished and compensation to traders, for disturbance to their businesses.in theory, compensation and betterment should balance each other.

In practice they do not, and under the present system of land ownership it is not possible to devise any scheme for making them balance.

If all the land in the country were in the ownership of a single person or body the necessity for paying compensation and collecting betterment on account of shifts in value due to planning would disappear.

But a policy of land nationalization is rejected because (i) it is not to be embarked upon lightly and would arouse keen political controversy, (ii) it would involve financial operations which, in the immediate post war period, might be entirely out of the question, and (iii) it would involve the establishment of complicated administrative machinery.

Short of immediate nationalization, the only solution of the compensation betterment problem in regard to undeveloped land is that the rights of development therein should be vested immediately in the States, on payment of fair compensation, such vesting to be secured by the imposition of a prohibition against development otherwise than with the consent of the State, accompanied by the grant of compulsory powers of acquiring the land itself when wanted.

As regards developed land its piecemeal transfer to public ownership , as and when required for planning and other purposes, would be less cumbersome a task than that involved in immediate wholesale nationalization .

Powers of purchase, much wider and simpler in operation than under existing legislation, should be conferred on public authorities.

A periodic levy should be imposed on increases in annual site value, with the object of securing such betterment for the community as and when it is realized, enjoyed or realizable.

[A number of subsidiary recommendations explain and amplify the above]