South Yorkshire Times March 15, 1958

Conisbrough U.D.C.
Statement on Shop Clearance Issue

We have received the following letter from the Clerk to Conisbrough Urban Council, Mr. R. F. Edwardson, on a slum clearance issue affecting a Conisbrough Businessman

”A report in your issue of March 8th, referred to the fact that Conisbrough Urban District Council had awarded £70 compensation to Mr. S. G. Oldfield, a shopkeeper affected by a Clearance Order, and that he had been obliged to ex-pend £600 in the purchase of a new business. It may well be that your readers will gain an impression that the Council have acted inequitably regarding compensation and I am instructed to state the facts.

The premises occupied by Mr. Oldfield as a house and shop were included in a clearance order on the grounds that they were unfit for human habitation and the Council in so dealing with the premises were discharging their statutory duty In the health interests of the occupiers.

“It has long been apparent that in such circumstances considerable hardship may ensue for a displaced shopkeeper. The Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956 was designated to mitigate hardship in a limited number of cases of this kind, but did not apply to persons carrying on business as in unfit houses whose tenancies are for a year or less.

Unfortunately Mr Oldfield interest was limited to fortnightly tenancy he did not qualify for compensation under this Act.

“The Council, however, have a discretionary power under Section 6-.1 of the ‘lousing Act, 1957, to paid to such person “such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards the loss which, in their opinion, he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade and in estimating that loss they shall have regard to the period for which the premises might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his trade.”

It could validly be argued that premises which are themselves unfit and ripe for demolition can no longer be reasonably expected to be available for the purpose of trade and do not qualify even fcr a discretionary payment for disturbance of trade.

“Before arriving at a decision in the present case, the Council had before them information as to the methods adopted by a large number of local authorities in dealing with similar claims. Some authorities make no payments at all other than removal expenses; whilst others make moderate payments ranging from £20 to a maximum of £100. A certain number, however, use the formula laid down in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, i.e. twice the rateable value of the premises, and my Council decided to follow this course in Mr, Oldfield’s case and that of another trader displaced by the same Clearance Order.

“It is quite clear that the payment in all such cases of full compensation based on goodwill would place an intolerable burden on the local ratepayers and be a deterrent to the discharge of their pubIle health duties by local authorities and it is presumably for these reasons that no Government has seen fit to enact legislation requiring this element to be met.”