Tag Archives: Col. Chart

Tribute to Civil Defence by Col Chart in Sept 1944

Mitcham Advertiser – Thursday 28 September 1944

Tribute To Civil Defence

“MITCHAM HAS BEEN WELL SERVED”

“With a greater knowledge and right than anyone to speak, I say emphatically that Mitcham has been well served by her Civil Defence workers.”

Col. Stephen Chart, D.S.O., Mitcham Town Clerk and Controller, made that statement at a mass gathering of Civil Defence workers in the Baths Hall on Saturday night. He added, “You will, we hope, soon be returning to civil occupations, and civil defence will be a thing of the past. Carry into your civil occupations the same co-operative spirit and the same sense of service that you have shown in these war years, and keep up the same friendly relations, and Mitcham will be the better for it. The end of this war will see my retirement from the position of Controller. It has been a matter of considerable pride to me that in this world-wide war I have had under my control a service of such value and with such a reputation.”

The Mayor (Coun. W. Jeffery), Ald. E. J. Field (Chief Warden), and the Deputy Chief Wardens were among those present. The Roosters Concert Party entertained the gathering.

MITCHAM HISTORY

Col. Chart said he had arranged the gathering because it was difficult at the present time to forecast the immediate future of the Civil Defence organisation. It was possible, and perhaps probable, that it would disappear piecemeal, and he would have no other opportunity of speaking to them as a body.

“Some day, perhaps,” he went on, “someone will really compile a history of Mitcham. When that time comes, the history of Civil Defence in these war years made by you will form an important chapter.

“The civil defence work in Mitcham commenced in 1935, without a great deal of encouragement either from the local Council or from many of the public. It owes much to those public-spirited pioneers who braved the sneers of those days and who reaped their rewards some years later. However, it was not until 1939, at the outbreak of war, that the organisation came into existence as a living entity, although, as some of you may well remember, we had before that date amused ourselves with many and varied exercises.

“On Aug. 16, 1940, you received your baptism of fire in the daylight raid at Phipps Bridge. From Sept. 2, 1940, to Dec. 28, 1940, we experienced raids on 52 occasions. In 1941 we had another nine, and, after a lull, two in 1943 and four in 1944. On June 18, 1944, ‘flies’ commenced and, after 48 had fallen between that date and Aug. 11, our troubles apparently ceased, at any rate for the time being.”

THE PERSONAL TOUCH

Speaking to the wardens, Col. Chart said: “Your services are now a household word. You were formed to be the guides, philosophers and friends of all. You have lived up to this reputation, and to say that is to say a great deal. You have been well led by your chiefs, and I, personally, wish to acknowledge gratefully the assistance I have had at all times from the chief warden and the district wardens, and the post wardens.

“To you of the Rescue Parties, there are many persons alive and unhurt to-day who owe their lives to your good work and to the promptness with which you responded to the call. You have helped many other districts and have done good work in the heart of London itself.

“To you of the Ambulance Services, it is not a pleasant job picking up the badly injured and taking them to hospital. Some of your experiences were enough to try the nerves of the strongest. You can feel that, at any rate, one person has realised what it meant and has appreciated what you have done.

“To you at the Fixed First Aid Posts, Mobile Unit, your training has been of the specialist type, and I cannot, therefore, appraise it myself, but others better qualified have given your work unstinted praise. The enthusiasm of your superintendents has never wavered or been surpassed. Your sole complaints were when there were no broken heads nor limbs to bind.

“To you of the Gas Identification Service, you have been unlucky, but the message, ‘Mr. Taylor standing by,’ has never failed. They also serve who only stand and wait.

“To the Incident Officers, we have had a good team, and, although we did not accept all the teaching of the group and regional schools, I had the utmost confidence in you, and that confidence was never misplaced.

“To the Medical Services, you were there when you were wanted. Many of you did much hard work during the training period, and the Rescue and Ambulance Services owe much to you.

“To the Report and Control, you have been a happy party. Nearly all of you have served throughout the war. Your work has mostly been unseen by the public and therefore unsung; nevertheless its value to the public has been immense. We have heard many public tributes to the other services but very few to you, so I wish to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate your unfailing loyalty and your good work.”

Road charges dispute in 1930

Norbury News, 3rd January 1930

ROAD CHARGES INQUIRY.
Tamworth Park Road and St. George’s Road.

SOME PLAIN SPEAKING.

“It is manifestly unfair if any additional charge is put upon the general body of ratepayers for works of any private street,” said Mr. Stephen Chart, clerk to the Mitcham Council, at an inquiry yesterday (Thursday).

A Ministry of Health inspector attended the Vestry Hall, Mitcham, to hear the objections of 43 frontagers residing in St. George’s-road and Tamworth Park-road, against the road charges as apportioned upon them by the Mitcham Urban District Council.

Mr. Stephen Chart represented the Council and Mr. Turner appeared for the objecting frontagers.

Several frontagers attended in person.

At the outset Mr. Chart informed the inspector that the objections had been heard by the magistrates, sitting as the Croydon County Bench, and they confirmed the original apportionments, with a slight amendment. The Bench substituted concrete kerb for granite kerb, Mr. Chart explaining that the Council preferred granite and agreed to pay the additional cost as a contribution to the work.

FRONTAGERS’ CASE.

Opening the case for the frontagers, Mr. Turner said that practically all the frontagers were objecting, the figures being 26 out of 33 in St. George’s-road, and 27 out of 32 in Tamworth Park-road. The complaint of the frontagers in both roads was that the Council, in making their apportionments, had not taken into account the question of degree of benefit.

Moreover, some of the objectors complained that they had done certain work on the roads which they had not been allowed for. Correspondence had taken place with the Council, the latter stating they realised that in many cases in the making-up of private streets it was possible there might be some hardship imposed upon certain frontagers, but the degree of hardship raised exceedingly thorny questions, and the Council regretted they could not alter their decision as to the apportionments.

“The Council are charged with the duty of doing what is fair and just between the several frontagers,” added Mr. Turner, “and my submission to this inquiry is that they have not exercised that duty.”

PURCHASER’S CONCLUSION.

Mr. J. H. Dryer, the occupier of 53, Tamworth Park-road, said his apportionment amounted to about £150.

Asked if he took into consideration the matter of road charges before he purchased his property, witness replied: “I took into consideration the unique position of the roads, and I reasonably came to the conclusion that the roads would never be made up. To my surprise, I had only been there about six months when I was disillusioned.”

Witness complained that a certain part of the new estate, adjacent to his property, was used as a builder’s yard. The roads had since been cut up by heavy traffic.

Mr. Chart: You knew quite well when you bought your house that there would be flank charges?

Mr. Dryer: I was told by the man who showed me the house that if ever the roads were made up the Council would certainly grant me something towards it. Of course, I did not take much notice of that, because the man wanted to sell his house. I used my own reasonable judgment on the roads as I saw them then.

AN OUTSPOKEN CAPTAIN.

Capt. Brooke-Smith said he had been a resident and owner of a semi-detached house in St. George’s-road since January, 1920. At that time the road was in a fair condition. Since then a part of Cedars Estate, adjoining, was used as a dump. The roads around his house had also been badly cut up. On top of all their sufferings, added the captain, they were called upon to pay according to their frontages, “whereas Messrs. Cronk, who had made themselves a nuisance, get off lightly. I should say if they paid a third it would be a very fair apportionment. Otherwise it is a damned hardship on the frontagers.”

BEAT HIM!

Questioned by Mr. Chart with regard to the objections raised in writing, Capt. Brooke-Smith remarked: “The evidence drawn up by the lawyer is so complicated that I cannot understand it.”

“With all respect to my friend, Col. Chart,” added the captain, “I think that the Mitcham District Council are doing a thing whatever the outcome of this inquiry, they are not going to get the sympathy of the ratepayers in this area. I do not mind telling you that the last time I had election literature sent round, I tore up the damned things.” (Laughter)

Mr. T. W. Devereaux and another frontager also personally objected.

COUNCIL’S CASE.

Stating the case for the Council, Mr. Chart said they could not make an apportionment by frontage in any single case. That was a rather startling proposition, he admitted, but he asserted they would not find a road where either the frontage or other conditions of property were alike.

“I submit,” continued Mr. Chart, “that what you have got to consider is whether there are any very exceptional circumstances. The Council say that these roads are ordinary roads, and there are no exceptional circumstances to take into account. It is not a position where the owners or objectors had a particular position created after they purchased their houses. They knew their exact position before purchasing, and no hardship since has been created. The making up of the roads did not cost anything extraordinary; in fact, some of them considerably less than the making up of other roads in the district.”

“ONLY POSSIBLE COURSE.”

In conclusion, Mr. Chart asserted: “I submit that the Council adopted the only possible and practical course, and I go further and say that any rearrangement must necessarily result in bringing additional burden on the general body of ratepayers, who are not concerned in this dispute, and it is manifestly unfair if any additional charge is put upon the general body of ratepayers for works of any private street.”

County Councillor Joseph Owen and Mr. Riley Scholefield (the Council’s surveyor) gave detailed evidence.

At the close the inspector promised to report to the Ministry.