Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

24 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

A WIRRAL SEWAGE SCHEME. --+---I

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

A WIRRAL SEWAGE SCHEME. --+- GOVERNMENT INQUIRY. On Friday, Mr. H. Percy Boulnois, In- spector of the Local Government Board, conducted an inquiry at the Mission Hall. Childer Thornton, into the application of the Wirral Rural Dis- trict Council to borrow £9,953, to be apportioned as foilows-Childer Thomton 96383, Eastham £1,990, and Hooton £ 1.580, for the purposes of sewage and sewage disposal for the three town- hipSi. The overseers of Eastham appealed to the Local Government Board against the appor- tionment The Wirral Rural Council also applied for an order declaring ceitain expenses incurred in connection with the abandoned scheme of sewer- age of the townships of Cnilder Thornton, East- ham, Hooton, Little Sutton and Willaston should be deemed special expenses chargeable upon those townships. The following attended the inquiry:—Mr. J. E. S. Ollive (clerk to the Wirral Council), Mr. F. E. Priest (engineer to the Wirral Council), Dr. Vacher (mecLKal officer to the County Council), Dr. Kenyon (medical officer to the Vv irrai Coun- cil). Mr. H. A. Latham (Childer Thornton, oppos- ing the appeal ot he ovei seers of Eastuam). Mr. Paxton (representing Eastham Paiish Council), Mr. T Walls (sanitii y m-pector to Wirral Coun- cil), Mr. W. Shennon (surveyor to the Wirral Council), Mr. T. W tiding (assIstant overseer of Childer Thornton). Mr. Ollive, in his opening statement, gave the following statistics regarding the townships con- oerned:-Eastliam, area 1,604 acres, population 913, assessable value for sanitary purposes £7,155, balance of loans outstanding £.81 5s. 2d. Hoo- ton, 1,178 acres, population 200 assessable value £ 2,847, outstanding loans £10 2s. 8d.. Childer Thornton. 746 acres, population 685, assessable value E5,039, outstanding loans £ 68 10s. lOd. The assessable value for Eastham had been increased by the doubling of tne assessment on the railway, but an appeal against it was pending. Mr. Ollive said the sewerage 01 the town-sh.ps had been be- fore the Council for some years. It was raised on the report of Dr. va, her on the pollution of brooks, and much trouble had been caused by a nuisance at Hooton. The proprietors of the Tre- gasol Works there had made a good deal of bother about the nuisance in the d.tch near the works The County Council and Local Government Board had urged the Wirral Council to do what they could to abate the nuisance. The sewage of Childer Thornton and Hooton came down into the brook at Hooton, and in the summer time the nuisance was unbearable. The Council could only flush it, when it arose, and in a short time it accumulated again. Tnere were no other means of doing away with the nuisance except by a pub- lio sewer, and its necessity was generally recog- nised by the ratepayers. The Council pieparod a scheme, and an inquiry was held in 1901. The scheme was unsatisfactory, and the Local Govern- ment Board declined to sanction it and returned the plans with the advice that certain townships should be cut off and modifications made. The Council had tried to carry out the suggestions, and the Parish Councils of Hooton and Childer Thornton had entirely agreed with the provisions made. The Eastham Paiish Council, however, thought they had too much of the cost of the joint scheme, and they appealed to the Local Govern- ment Board. As it was a technical matter, the Wirral Council thought the dispute could best be dealt with at that inquiry, as their engineer could explain the matter. Mr. Paxton (Eastham Parish Council): The Wirral Council do not take any responsibility for the apportionment. That had been left to Mr. Priest. Mr. Ollive: Mr. Priest has explained it to the Council, and they are satisfied. Mr. Paxton: Do the Council understand it? Mr. Ollive: Though I do not quite understand it, I believe the Council do. Mr. Paxton said the only point his Council raised was as to the apportionment, not as to the necessity of the scheme. The Inspector: There is no dispute as to its necessity. That was so thoroughly threshed out at the last inquiry. Has nothing since been dona to improve the situation? Dr. Vacher and Dr. Kenyon replied in the nega- tive. Mr. Priest proceeded to explain the details of the scheme. He said there were two distinct por- tions of the work. The first part. consisted of an outfall sewer serving the three townships. The other part served Eastham only, and lay on the north-eastern part of the scheme. Childer Thorn- ton had a scheme having an outfall on to certain land, but there was no means of dealing with the sewage at the outfall, and to some extent a nuisance was created. The whole of Childer Thornton (746 acres) was dealt with under the scheme, together with part of Hooton and East- ham. The total area of Eastham was 1 604 acres, and the scheme dealt with 905 acres The whole area of Hooton was 1,178 acres, and the scheme dealt with 217 acres. The whole of the popula- tion of Childer Thornton (200) was dealt with, while out of 913 in Eastham and 200 in Hooton the scheme covered populations of 175 and 155 respec- tively. Of the intercepting and connecting out- fall sewers one went in a northerly direction, through the three townships, approximately parallel with the brook, while the other lay in an easterly direction down the road called Rake- lane at Eastham. The comparison of the rates on the townships under the present and the former scheme was as follows:—Childer Thornton, under the present scheme Is. 7d., against Is. ll^d. under the former scheme; Eastham 4id., against Is. 6d. Hooton 7d., against 5d. If the railway assess- ment appealed against was upheld, the rates would be: Childer Thornton Is. 5d., Eastham 3-gd., Hoo- ton 6fd. The Inspector said he had. gone over the plans with Mr. Priest, and from what he had seen, the scheme practically sewered the whole of the dis- trict. He was of opinion that- the proposed filter- ing carrier was insufficient. The tank was ample, but the filter would probably have to be enlarged. The cost would not be a very heavy one. Mr. Paxton asked if it would not be possible for Eastham to deal with its own sewage, without a common sewer. Mr. Priest did not think so. It would not be a proper way to take Eastham independently. Mr. Paxton: Why should Eastham bear one- third of the apportionment of the common sewer? Mr. Priest said he had had to remember that the payment of the money would extend over thirty years. There was land in Eastham not built upon except to the extent of four houses, but it was just as likely to be built upon as the vacant land in Childer Thornton and Hooton. which was nearly as large in proportion. He thought one-third to each township was a quite fair division. Mr. Price, overseer for Eastham, said he had sent a memorial to the Local Government Board opposing the apportionment He considered that the suggestion that Eastham's contribution should be 15 per cent. of the total cost of the joint sewer and purification works was fair. At the request of the Inspe. tor, Dr. Vacher and Dr. Kenyon gave it as their opinion that the scheme met the requirements of the district. Mr. Paxton, addressing the Inspector, said the oontention of Eastham was that the scheme was primarily for the benefit of the other townships. Having regard to the small assessable value of the parish of Eastham served by the scheme and the small population, the apportionment was not fair. Mr. H. A. Latham said the parishes of Childer Thornton and Hooton, which he represented, had given their consent to the scheme on the condition that the apportionment was not altered. If it was, he asked permission to withdraw that consent in order that the parishes might reconsider the matter. The question relating to the special expenses in connection with the abandoned scheme was then laid before the Inspector. Mr. Ollive sa;d the cost of the abandoned scheme would have been L12 194, and the expenses which it was proposed: to charge specially to the parishes concerned were in amount £ 243 17s. 9d. made up as follows:—Childer Thornton B69 4s. 7d., Eastham £ 73 4s. 8d.. Hooton JB9 14s. 4d.. Little Sutton JS48 2s. 6d., Willaston E42 18s. Id. Mr. H. A. Latham in opposing the Wirral Council's proposal, urged that the amounts should go on the general district rate. The abandoned scheme was a gigantic and unreasonable one, and although he was a member of the District Council he objected to the cost being made a special ex- pense. The inquiry then closed, the Inspector promis- ing to lay the matter before the Local Govern- ment Board, who would give their decision in course of time.

[No title]

Advertising

THE FISCAL DEBATE. ---+--

FOOD SUPPLY TN WAR. ------+---

-------SOUTH AFRICA TO-DAY.

[No title]

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL…

FLINTSHIRE POLTCE COMMITTEE.…

[No title]

IMILITARY TRAIN WRECKED.

___-_0-,-----A BIRKENHEAD…

-----'--------.---A WONDERFUL…

[No title]

LITERARY. NOTICES.

CAMBRIDGE CLASS LISTS. ♦ —

[No title]

Advertising

----"-----POOR HATES. --..-

NANTWICH GASWORKS. 0

[No title]

- RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS.…

[No title]

Advertising