Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Thursday 14 June 1894

Conisborough and Denaby Drainage
Local Government Inquiry

Yesterday, at the Station Hotel, Conisborough, Colonel J. O. H. Hogg, R.E., held a Local Government Board inquiry with reference to a scheme on behalf of the overseers of Denaby relating to the apportionment of the cost of the drainage scheme for Conisborough and Denaby. Of course, the scheme had been settled, and the inquiry was held principally to consider the basis upon which the cost should be borne respectively amongst various houses for the purpose, and who have apportioned the cost between the two districts and on what basis.

Mr. Parker Rhodes said he did not propose to trouble about the cost of the sewerage scheme so much as to the apportionment of the £4,539 for the outfall works, which he thought should be distributed on a just and equitable basis. In making out that apportionment, of course the servant of the authority was bound to consider the resolution of that authority, and what he had to complain of was that the basis adopted by the authority was a mistaken basis, and not a correct one, and one that at the present moment would work a distinct injustice to one township involved, and which in the almost immediate future would work a terrible injustice to that township. He alluded to Denaby. They contended that the correct method of apportionment was to take the relative populations more evenly as the proportion of cost, and apportion on that basis, or to take the houses and buildings in each district and apportion on that basis.

Of all the Commissioners thought fit to do he could take into account not only the houses now served, but those in future likely to be served by the scheme, though of course in the latter method they would have to indulge in a good deal of speculation. He suggested, therefore, that the most equitable and feasible as well as the safest method was to take the actual valuation arrived at by the scheme. If, for instance, they took the rateable value they found the figures £60,700 and £15,700 in the two districts; or, in other words, they had gone upon a very erroneous basis than the other. If they looked at the relative population or the number of houses which could be drained they found that in Denaby there were only 308, taken from actual examination, while in Conisbrough there were 1,153 houses which either could or would be drained into the proposed works. It was perfectly obvious that if they adopted that method of apportionment the amount apportioned to Denaby would be in two cases, if it was settled on the basis of the population served, the same thing would be practically arrived at.

He suggested that it was a fair and proper method of dealing with the question to apportion the cost on the basis of the number of houses to be served by the scheme, and one that would interfere with contributory districts having a full and proper share for the benefit which would be derived when the scheme was completed. Now, to deal with the question of rateable value. The present rateable value of Denaby, as they knew, was £15,725. Probably, except for a cluster of houses lying around the colliery, was purely an agricultural district, and its large rateable value was caused by the existence of the colliery in the township. As the Commissioner would know, the colliery company was rated at a fixed valuation for the surface plant, and every year the township received the rateable value for the coal got in the previous year. But if that was so, the rateable value of Denaby for less a sum than £10,775 was attributable to Denaby Colliery for surface plant and the workings underground. Coal was a substance that did not last for ever. There were only about 1,000 acres in the parish to begin with, and the colliery had been in existence now for 50 years, and the day was not far off when that supply would cease. At the present rate of working the whole coal would be exhausted in about 14 years.

Suppose, then, that this sum was apportioned on the rateable value; look at the injustice it would create when the rateable value of Denaby ceased to exist, and when the neighbouring township of Conisbrough, owing to the working of the coal under Conisborough, had had its rateable value increased to a large extent. Even supposing it an equitable scheme at a total, then apportionment on the basis of rateable value, which might be fair to-day, would not be fair hereafter. Further than that it was not the correct basis in any event, and it was certain that it had not been the plan adopted and approved by even bodies holding similar inquiries to that. He might mention that according to the present proposal the scheme would cost £2 1s. 9d. per house in Conisbrough, and £8 3s. for each house in Denaby.

Mr. S. W. Wilson replied, and suggested that the Local Government Board had no right to consider any question of the future. They had seen how Mr. Rhodes was concerned about the future, and his very concern had betrayed his error. He was nominally representing the owners of Denaby, but really representing the large colliery company, which did not care two straws what happened to Denaby when they were out of the place. What they were thinking was not how rates were to be paid, but how far they could save their own pockets, and they did not care the weight of a hair what happened to Denaby when their profit there ceased, and they were out of it. (A voice: “True, true.”)

Mr. Parker Rhodes objected to these interjections of applause, and assured Mr. Wilson that his instructions were from the Overseers.

Mr. Wilson said he had often himself had to appear for two interests, and knew how useful it was to have a minor interest sacrificed for generations in the greater interest. (Laughter.) This was a scheme for the benefit of two districts, in one of which, Denaby, there happened to be a large colliery company which was deriving benefit from Denaby; and if there was to be a levy made upon Denaby for sewerage purposes it was the company’s own look-out. They must pay for the sewage of their houses there. Mr. Rhodes had told them there were only 230 houses in Denaby, but how many houses could Denaby Colliery account for? Hear, hear! If there were two-thirds of the rates paid by that company—200 houses—and then they would find that the figures given them to show the cost of sewerage would work out and considerably reduce the burden on the other side.

They had been told that the colliery would soon work out, and fourteen years had been fixed as the limit. But it was absurd to suppose that in fourteen years the miners would leave Denaby. There was a strong probability that other works would take place, and in any event there would still remain the plant and machinery for which, if he was rightly informed, there would be some compensation, and in any event he submitted that the Local Government Board could not deal with any hypothetical case of what was likely to occur at the Denaby Colliery in considering a question of this kind.

Mr. C. Tall followed on the same side, and pointing out that Denaby was charged nothing for consent for the sewage to flow through the Conisbrough service, said he thought they had already been very leniently treated.

After some remarks from Mr. Newstead on behalf of Lord Yarborough, pointing out that owners of property who would be injured in Conisbrough, and who would not be benefited, had not objected or petitioned to the apportionment, the inquiry closed.