Mexborough and Swinton Times, December 27.
The Water Supply of Conisborough.
Another £600 required.
The great need of Conisborough, is an efficient water supply. The members of the Doncaster Rural District Council, who are charged with the responsibility of providing a supply have decided to accept the offer of the Denaby and Cadeby Collieries Ltd to furnish water from the Cadeby borehole. The local Government Board had been asked to sanction a plan of £5000 for this purpose, but recently it was discovered that there had been a misunderstanding, and now it is found that in order to obtain the Cadeby borehole water a sum of about £600 over and above the original estimate will have to be expended.
This phase of the scheme was discussed at a special meeting of the Conisborough Parish Council on Monday evening, and again at an ordinary meeting of the Rural District Council on Tuesday afternoon.
In the course of this discussion at the Rural Council, Mr W.H.Chambers, the general manager of the Denaby and Cadeby Collieries, directed an unpleasant remark to Mr C Holmes, one of the Conisborough representatives, who, as is well known, is an employee of the Colliery Company. The remark was resented by several members and subsequently Mr Chambers withdrew it.
Conisborough Parish Council.
At the special meeting of the Conisborough Parish Council, held on Monday evening, there was a good attendance, 10 of the 13 members being present. Mr C Holmes (the chairman) presided and the other members in attendance were Mr J Brocklesby (vice-chairman), Mr D. Robinson, Mr W Revill, Mr C Walker, Mr G.H.Hirst, Mr G Smithson, Mr W. Wilson, Mr G.H.Singleton, Mr E Ravenscroft, together with the Clerk, Mr J Hawksworth
The Chairman explained the reason for the special meeting. At a meeting of the Sanitary Committee of the Rural District Council, held on Saturday, December 14, a letter was read from the Local Government Board, with reference to the water supply, of Conisborough. It stated that the Local Government Board had no fault to find with the source from which it was proposed the water, but there were one or two things they thought ought to be altered.
One was that the mains should be laid deeper than proposed and there was also another suggestion with regard to the reservoir. Mr Simmons, the engineer, was in attendance, and he stated that the cost of the alteration would be £277 extra. He also said there was another item that had to do with the conveying of the water by a rising main. He pointed out that when he made his estimate from the instructions of the Rural Council, he understood that the water was to be delivered by the Colliery Company into a reservoir, and that an overflow pipe was to be put into the Conisborough reservoir, in order to convey the water back to the Colliery Company’s reservoir.
Mr Simmons had understood that the Colliery Company was to provide the rising main and overflow pipe. It had since been intimated to Mr Simmons, that the Colliery Company did not intend to do that, and he pointed out that if that was the case his estimate would have to be increased by another £600 on the top of the £277. When that was made known, he (the Chairman) could not help but say it was altogether a different thing to what had been put before the Local Government Board inspector and local enquiry, and it was not fair to the Parish Council of Conisborough, who opposed the bore hole scheme, that this thing should be sprung on them now.
He contended that the case ought to have been put clearly before the Inspector, and then the opposition would have had a chance of dealing with it; but the case put before the Inspector was that the Colliery Company were to deliver the water into the reservoir, and engineer, and based his estimate upon that. He (the chairman), said that was a serious matter, and he was not at all satisfied with it; and though he was appealed to, at the Sanity Committee meeting to “accept the inevitable,” he declined, and said it would be a matter the people of Conisborough would have to decide. He was not going to commit the people of Conisborough further expenditure of £600 after the case had been put so clearly before the Local Government Board Inspector.
He asked the Assistant Clerk to the Rural District Council, Mr Marshall, who put the case before the Inspector, to produce the written statement he read it at the local enquiry, and see exactly how he stated the case. The written statement was produced, and read, and in that statement the case put before the inspector was that the colliery company were to deliver the water into the proposed reservoir. Then he (the Chairman) appealed to the engineer, Mr Simmons, as to how he had understood the case, and Mr Simmons said he had understood that the Colliery Company would deliver into the reservoir, and the inspector himself wrote on the plan, “to be delivered into a reservoir.”
The Colliery Company now said they never intended to do so, but why should the Rural Council have put it before the inspector if it was not the intention of the Colliery Company? He (the Chairman) contended that the parish ought not to have to suffer for any misunderstanding there might have been. The reason the special meeting of the parish council had been called was to give the members an opportunity of saying what they thought about the matter.
He suggested that the Parish council should put themselves in direct communication with the Local Government Board, and point out the conditions that were put before the Local Government Board Inspector and also the altered conditions, and ask the Board not to sanction the loan until a further enquiry had been held. He was quite convinced after the letter from the local movement Board that Conisborough would have to have the bore hole water, and he was anxious, as such was the case, they should have it as soon as possible; and, before Mr Simmons appeared at the meeting of the Sanitary Committee he would be asking the committee to do all they possibly could to further the scheme, and let Conisborough have water as soon as possible, because he knew there was a great need for it. As things had been during the last summer it had almost amounted to a water famine. It would be seen that as an auxiliary to the present supply a water cart had been sent round with the bore hole water.
He (the chairman) could not, as far as he was concerned, allow the scheme to go on without making a protest against the additional £600 being placed upon the shoulders of the ratepayers of the parish.
Mr Wilson: Had the Doncaster Rural Council ever a definite offer made by the Denaby Colliery Company, stating what they would do, and now much they would charge?
The chairman replied that the instructions the Rural Council, had given to the engineer were that the colliery company would deliver the water into the reservoir at the rate of sixpence per thousand gallons, the reservoir to be provided by the Rural District Council.
Mr Wilson: What do the Rural Council proposed to do now?
The Chairman replied that at the Sanitary Committee meeting there was a division of opinion as to how the matter stood. Amongst those who spoke were Mr Battery of Wadworth and Mr Harrison of Marr.
The latter spoke very strongly, and said he was disgusted with the all thing, and if he were the people of Conisborough, he would go in for having the Sheffield water. Mr C Schorah and the Rev E.S.de Courcy Ireland seemed to think that the provision of the rising main and overflow pipe by the Rural Council was implied by the fact that the Rural Council, had obtained a way leave from the Montagu trustees.
A recommendation was moved that the Rural Council should apply to the Local Government Board for sanction to borrow the additional £877. He moved an amendment to the effect that the Rural Council should apply to the Local Government Board not to give their sanction until another local enquiry be held at Conisborough.
His idea was that the ratepayers of Conisborough should be given an opportunity to make a protest. He might have succeeded better if he had been content with a simple negative, but he did not know at the time. Four members voted for the resolution and nine for his amendment, which was carried.
Mr Hirst: Could you tell us what Mr Chambers had to say on the question?
The Chairman: Mr Chambers was there, and he said he never intended to carry the rising main to the proposed reservoir, and he used the same argument that several others used; arguing that the agreement that the Rural Council should supply the rising main, was implied by the Rural Council and having the agreement for the way leave. Continuing, the chairman said that at the meeting of the Committee the Engineer, Mr Simmons, said that the costs of laying mains from Hill Top to the resevoir which would be necessary for the Sheffield Supply would cost double the £600. He (the Chairman) pointed out in the case the Sheffield Supply had been decided upon they would not have had the reservoir where it was now proposed to be constructed, Mr Simmons replied that from an engineering point of view that was the best possible site.
Mr Robinson, in the course of some remarks, strongly criticised the colliery company and Mr Chambers. He referred to Mr Chambers as a tyrannical despot; he added “What do you think of a man like him? I was going to say a gentleman but there is not one bit of gentleman about him.
The Chairman: Just be moderate.
Mr Robinson: Never mind; I hope the reporters will notice it. I don’t care who knows what I say. I appeal to you, as members of the Parish Council, who had been elected by the ratepayers of Conisborough, will you sit here and let this gentleman rule you in this style; I appeal to you as men not to sit down and let him say “I am the boss of the show.” There is no doubt he is doing. If the people of Conisborough would back me up, we would have no water at all, but go on as we have been doing this five or six years, and never mind the bore hole water. I move that we put all the facts of the case before the Local Government Bought, and asked them not to sanction the loan until a local enquiry has been held.
Mr Hirst seconded the resolution and said that in his opinion the £600 was nothing less than an extra cost the colliery company were putting on.
Mr Robinson: Certainly it is nothing less. They have beleaguered you all these years; they are beleaguered you again. But I say, stand out against them now; we will fight them for it.
Mr Brocklesby was not quite sure if the course suggested by Mr Robinson would be the best, but he was satisfied that some action ought to be taken. He certainly disagreed with the proposal to spend another £600 on top of the estimate that was submitted to the inspector at the enquiry. He was satisfied from what the Chairman said that when the Local Government Board looked into the matter they would be satisfied that the full facts of the case were not placed before them, that was presuming at the time that it was within the knowledge of Mr Chambers, who gave lengthy evidence at the enquiry; and if that fact was within the knowledge of Mr Chambers.
Mr Robinson: There is no doubt it was at that time.
Mr Brocklesby added if that was so it was very evident the full facts of the case were not laid before the Local Government Board. He thought the Parish Council had a just complaint against Mr Chambers, and also against the Rural Council, which seemed to him had acted upon insufficient information. It seemed there had been an agreement between the Rural Council and the Colliery Company that had not been sufficiently clear and definite, otherwise a mistake could not have arisen.
It seemed to him that Conisborough, was suffering, had been suffering for some years, and probably will suffer again from the fact that the Rural Council of Doncaster, a council wholly rural in its character, was seeking to govern a district that was told, intents and purposes, urban; and so long as that condition of things existed it was very evident that matters, as far as Conisborough was concerned, would be very unsatisfactory indeed. It was utterly hopeless to expect that the Rural District Council of Doncaster, could run the affairs of Conisborough with any degree of efficiency. He regretted the matter had happened, as it was likely to defer the settlement of the question of the water supply. The Chairman and the members were well able to defend their own opinions, but on his own behalf he would like to say that he had not by any action he had taken deferred the proper supply of water for a single hour. He protested very strongly against such criticism, which had no foundation whatever in fact.
Continuing, Mr Brocklesby suggested that a deputation should be sent from the Parish council to the Local Government Board to put forth the facts of the water scheme, and also with regard to several other matters in connection with which he contended the parish of Conisborough, had been unfairly treated.
Mr Wilson also spoke, and contended that the Rural District Council ought to call upon the Colliery Company to do what they had offered to do.
The Chairman speaking of the draft agreement between the Rural Council and the Colliery Company, expressed dissatisfaction on several points. One was the proposed maximum supply of 80,000 gallons a day, which he argued, was not sufficient. There should also be a condition in the agreement stating that if at any time the water from the borehole became unsatisfactory – polluted or contaminated in anyway are not fit for the purposes for which it was intended – the agreement should cease.
After a little further discussion Mr Brocklesby moved a resolution in the following terms:
“That we intimate to the Rural DistrictCouncil that we have decided to approach the Local Government Board in regard to the proposed additional cost of £600 for the rising main, and in the meantime, we request the Rural Council to hold the Colliery Company to their original agreement to supply the water into the Conisborough reservoir.”
Mr Ravenscroft seconded the resolution, which was unanimously adopted. Mr Robinson was in agreement with the members after discussion to amend his resolution, making it read:
“That we place the whole of the facts before the Local Government Board and asked them to receive a deputation in regard to Conisborough affairs generally.”
Mr Hirst seconded the resolution which was also unanimously adopted.
Č
đ
Add files
Comments
James Beachill
Add a comment
Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|