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.