Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 13 February 1931
Conisboro’ U.D.C.
Plea for Conversions
Conisborough Still in Backward State.
A Plea for Conisborough.
A letter from Mr. Charles Bashforth, 29, Ivanhoe Road, Conisborough , complained of the Council’s delay in the conversion of privvies and pointed out that those in Denaby had been converted some time ago.
Mr. Bashforth, who was present at the meeting, asked for permission to speak.
Mr. J. I. Webster said when they got a letter like that it looked as though they were not doing their duty. The difficulty they were up against was that they had not got the facilities for dealing with the sewage flow. A scheme was being got out by which they would be able to deal with the whole of the outflow from Conisborough. This was being pushed through as quickly as possible but there was a tremendous lot of details to be dealt with.
Mr. Ben Roberts suggested that Mr. Bashforth be allowed to say a few words on the subject and then perhaps the Surveyor would explain the details.
The Surveyor: I don’t think it is my business to give all these details.
Mr. Bashforth said that when the matter of conversion was considered it was decided to convert at Denaby first. That was not conversion, it was reconstruction. At Conisborough it was conversion, and would not cost a quarter of what Denaby cost. After ten years of urban powers they were still in much the same position in this matter and he thought something ought to be done. The Council had built houses at Conanby with w.c.s. The Council houses were a credit. “But the rank and file,” he continued, “which sent you here are still living where these open privy middens are, and I think you ought to make every effort to get them cleared away. I should like to ask one question. Is it right or is it not right to remove them?”
The Chairmen: It is.
Mr. Bashforth: Then do the thing that is right.
Sewage Difficulty.
The Surveyor said it was not altogether a question of money. They had got the money, or part of it. It was a case of overloading the sewage works. There were no such things as open middens in Conisborough.
There were 626 privvies of which about 200 were attached to private houses which were really hardly fit for habitation and it would not be fair to ask the owners to convert these as the houses might have to be pulled down. That left the Council about 400 to deal with. Mr. Bashforth’s statement about the rebuilding at Denaby was true, but the Council only contributed half what it would have cost to have converted these privvies and the owners borrowed the remainder. The major portion of the cost fell on the owners. The new houses in the old Conisborough district had absorbed what little margin there was in the sewage plant.
Plans for sewage disposal were well advanced, and when they were through they would be able to deal with all the outflow.
Mr. Collins said the number of people who had to be approached with respect to getting the conversions done at Denaby was small, whereas at Conisborongh a considerable number of property owners would have to be approached. If they had been in a position to deal with the sewage caused by these conversions the Council would have approached these people with a view to getting the conversions done.
“When this can take place the Council will have it done,” he concluded.