Urban Powers Inquiry – 8. Other Supporters of the Scheme

February 1901

Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 08 February 1901

Conisborough Urban Powers Inquiry

Other Supporters of the Scheme

Mr Newstead, representing Lord and Lady Yarborough, who are large landowners in the district, said Lord and Lady Yarborough could not give unqualified assent to the original scheme, on acceptance of the inclusion of the largest state of rural land, but they were prepared to unreservedly support the scheme now submitted.

Mr F Allen, speaking on behalf of of the School Board, said that in the New Conisborough and Denaby district a census showed that there were 2,239 children, of which 1,700 were of school-age. Accommodation for 1,200 was provided at the colliery schools, which left 500 children for which there was no school accommodation. This came to the knowledge of the Education Department, and they required the Conisborough School Board to furnish accommodation for 800. As a first instalment of the scheme the Board had in progress the building of an infant school for 280 children, and assumes that was finished they would be required to go providing the remainder of the required accommodation.

The expenditure at present would be £6,500 in respect of land, boundary wall and infant school. They had not yet got the estimates for the accommodation for the mixed School, but provision will have to be made for 520 children, which, on the basis of £10 per head, would mean something like £5,000. The rateable value of the Conisborough Parish remained as it was at present, that expenditure would mean the doubling of the present School Board rate. The School Board emphatically said the colliery company were not paying a fair share of that burden. It had been stated that provision was to be made by the colliery company for an increase of 5,000 in the population of Denaby, and if the population was so increased there was nothing on earth to prevent the colliery company causing all Denaby children to be sent to the colliery schools and excluding New Conisborough children altogether. These would have to be provided for by the Conisborough School Board.

The contention of the School Board was that seeing the pithead at Cadeby and the colliery works had produced the increased population, which had resulted and would result in so large an increase in expenditure for school purposes, it was only an act of justice that the colliery should be included in the area for school purposes.

Mr Allen contested the statement that the new school colliery would cost £23 per head, and said it was not fair to charge to the infant school the cost of the site and the whole of the boundary wall. The board have been able to satisfy the Education Department that they had not been extravagant.