Conisbro’ & Urban Powers. Opposition by Colliery Company

March 1900

Sheffield Independent – Saturday 31 March 1900

Conisbro’ and Urban Powers.

Opposition by the Denaby and Cadeby Colliery Company

The second days enquiry by the County Council concerning Conisbro’s application for Urban Powers, fully sustained interest of the previous day, they being again a large attendance of ratepayers.

The legal gentlemen attended as on Thursday, for and against the application.

Evidence was first given by Doctor Mitchell Wilson, the medical officer for the Doncaster Rural Council, who oppose the application.

Mr Wedderburn, who represented the Parish Council of Denaby, then called Mr W.H. Chambers, the chairman, who also the manager of the Denaby Main Colliery. This witness said there was a memorial from the Denaby Council against the proposed scheme. It was considered very undesirable that there should be any such change as was proposed.

Old Denaby resident held the same view. There was petition against the scheme, signed by 950 persons in Denaby. The agricultural portion was very small. The real ratable value of the west end was obtained from Denaby Main.

Mr. Wcdderburn; The benevolence the colliery| company would be likely to cease if Conisbro’ got ‘ possession of Denaby?—Yes, that would be natural. The colliery company could not afford to do so much for the place under such circumstances. They felt they could more cheaply and efficiently manage the place themselves.

Mr Whittaker, Sheffield, owner of property in Denaby Main, was neat called. He slated that he thought the districts would better if they remained at present constituted.

Mr Thos. Weston, of the Reresby Arms, Denabv, also thought it would well lo leave things they are. If the application was granted it would seriously affect his pocket. He was the largest property owner in Denaby, with the exception of the colliery company.

Mr D Balfour, C.E.(Mr Balfour and Sons of Westminster and Newcastle on Tyne) was next examined.

Mr Wedderburn: you were invited by the Doncaster rural District Council to inspect their sewage scheme? – Yes

Your opinion is that the Denaby Main sewage must be drained from the outfall for the works and not to them? – Yes.

Mr Stephen, C.E., Manchester in reply to Mr Wedderburn said he could see no possible reason why Cadeby should be brought into the proposed area.

Mr Wedderburn then summed up on behalf of his client against the application of the Conisbro Council, contend that the close of day the Men will be unfair in many respects, particularly referring to the water supply and the question of sewage. He stated that, notwithstanding previous enquiries, they would again be opposition on the part of Denaby Main in case the application was acceded top. He hoped there will be no delay in coming to a decision.

Mr Bairstow, Mr Ellison and Mr Parker Rhodes also spoke against the application, and Mr Waugh addressed the commission on behalf of the Conisbrough Parish Council.